Posts tagged Law

College is like a Frat Boy…

1 year ago
by Rico Penguin in

…in the sense that it’s single mindedly trying little more than to screw you. Though admittedly the college is looking to screw you financially, which for some is a whole lot more dastardly than a one night stand with “Chad” (Yeah we all know what you really want Chad).

  College tuition has been routinely increasing at a rate far higher than that of inflation (or any reasonable estimate of actual future costs). You might think to yourself, “Awesome! Now the professors are finally making the amount of money they deserve!”, but unfortunately this is not the case at all. This money isn’t going towards professors, it is going towards the amenities of the school, new pools, new gyms, random sculptures, and largely to the school President.

  You can think of the School President as your own personal Lawmaker, they don’t actually do anything that benefits you but they get paid obscene amounts of money. If you question them on this, as my college did (Western Washington University) they will tell you that “The cost is a small price to pay for their expertise.” Which is entirely poppycock (a term I don’t use nearly enough), you could teach basically any person how to run the college with the same level of efficiency and at a fraction of the cost. Considering how much most people make this would still be a huge increase in pay for them.

  Colleges are becoming, if they haven’t already, resorts. These institutions no longer have the graduation of their students in mind and it’s not even a priority, the worse a student does the longer they stay and the more they invest. The college has no motivation to lower prices because student loans are handed out with reckless abandon, you might ask yourself why they are so easy to get. The answer to that is simple and falls back on my previous topic of politics.

  Both Federal Student Loans and Private Loans are non dischargeable in bankruptcy. This means that if you go into debt trying to get an education you are screwed for life unless that education suddenly earns you a job that can pay off the loans (Protip: It won’t). Why would such laws be put into place instead of requiring loan agencies to actually vet their clients? Well simply put it gives them complete control over the situation, they can hand out a million dollars this year and know with certainty that they’ll be able to milk it out of someone, be it the person they give the loan to or the family of that person, or if in the future that person dies then to that person’s kids. The problem lies in the logic that there will always be money to steal from somewhere.

  College no longer exists for the same reason it once did, much like medicine cannot properly function as a for profit industry (as it has shown almost across the board) so too can the educational industry not function as a for profit industry. The idea that any society would let either fall into that model is so outlandish that I wouldn’t believe it in a story had it not already existed in reality.

  Colleges are going to start failing, perhaps not all at once, but certainly all will if this current model does not change. It is another bubble formed from multiple levels of failure from the public level all the way to the political level. A perfect storm of greed, ignorance, and greedy ignorance (I see what I did there). The good news is there is no reason to worry about it, because too many people will fight for it to not change that it will stay the same.

  Instead just make sure that you save up for your children, that if necessary you send them to a college outside of the country. Don’t take out loans, don’t let your friends or families take out loans, and make sure not to give this new model of College Resorts be a successful one, it is a blight on our society and it must be killed with one of the few tools left “Financial Atrophy”.

  I would like to cite NakedLaw. They mention much of what I have above with sources and with eloquence that only a lawyer can provide. Though much of this was discussed Ad Nauseum in the school newspaper during my years in college. The President of the school basically (using flowery terms) called the entire school population ignorant and made sure they knew that only he could lead with any level of quality :P .

  (Which was bull: Almost nobody on this planet can do something that anyone else couldn’t do with a fairly unchanging amount of training (10,000 hours). The trick is having the money to have the time to do the training :) . It’s little more than that. For those wondering you have 5,840 hours each year of time you spend awake. The reason most experts become experts very young in life is that they most likely don’t have a job, not necessarily because they are youthful.)

Why “Anti” is the ignorant approach to Abortion and the proper approach.

2 years ago
by Rico Penguin in

  Now I’ll admit that I’m not a fan of killing anyone. I find it highly unfortunate that we at times place ourselves in situations where people are killed or where it becomes difficult to support the sustained life of a certain person. It’s a shame and indeed is a global problem.

  However on that note of killing there is another major problem with (at the very least) the US’s general take on problems. Militant cures to social problems has been an issue that has unfortunately reared its ugly head many times in the short History of the US. We often have situations that require a small amount of regulation and instead assault them with a violent fervor that is unnecessary and in the end entirely destructive and unhelpful.

  While this might look like its obviously leading to any of our various failed “wars on X” I’m actually looking more so at Abortion. Abortion is an issue that we are told is very much on the forefront of people’s minds, I disagree, I do think though that it is largely blown out of proportion and discussion on it are wrought with misinformation and deception.

  When looking at a problem that you see the first response should not be to outlaw it. Outlawing something does nothing to lessen the issue. The people who would have done it will still do it, the people who were unlikely to do it will not do it, and the people who would have never done it are still never going to have done it. What you do do however is create criminals for no better reason than to justify a crusade against differing life views or styles.

  Abortion really should just be a last response to medical problems with mothers and the birth of their children. I recognize that it isn’t and that is what we’ll look at. First the answer to nearly all problems is education. Believe it or not if you educate people honestly and openly about a situation they will inevitably come to an educated conclusion about it. I’ll admit that doesn’t happen 100% of the time but nothing ever does that humans can verify.

  So first you educate people fully about what? Well sexual education, abstinence education is an entirely unscientific system presented to kids for no better reason than to push religious beliefs on them. This is a terrible idea and it has been proven that it doesn’t work, how is it proven? Well unwanted pregnancies are a good example. I can educate people not to breath because it makes me feel better but it is their biological need to breath that will override my personal views.

  Once you have educated people and they know of all the highly effective methods (as opposed to ones that only work in theory) to prevent pregnancy until they are prepared. After this we move onto the next issue. What if people take all the proper precautions and are still finding themselves in the situation of an unplanned pregnancy? Well we take after various wonderful places (such as Sweden) and we make it feasible for them to still be able to raise the child or at the very least we make the time between conception and birth as non traumatizing as it can be. Strong support for the expected mother and all the information necessary to be a strong parent. Or even explaining the possibility of Adoption (albeit that is for many just as tough a question as abortion, its not easy for the mother at all).

  So we’ve accomplished two fold a fix. First we educate people openly and honestly treating them as they should be treated. Then for the people who may still get pregnant (a very small percentage assuming the first step) we treat them with respect and help give them all the available options. You will find that the amount of abortions in the country would indeed drop dramatically.

  The stories about fun time weekend abortions are likely as strongly based in factual events as reefer madness. Don’t allow people to take extreme militant approaches to problems because it will never do anything but make it worse. Historically this has and likely will always be the case. I just hope that with my generation growing, more intelligent and grounded people will take control of governing bodies. Who knows.

A little homophobia kills a long way.

2 years ago
by Rico Penguin in

  While I imagine absolutely anyone reading this already knows I thought it was a fascinating tidbit to point out just how destructive petty prejudices can be. Case in point with the ever vocal homophobes in our country (which is beyond me, I don’t see what homosexuality has to do with anyone outside of those who are homosexual).

  For whatever reason a vast amount of the Arabic translators in the US military are (or I suppose I should say were) homosexual. Prior to the 9/11 attack the US intelligence agencies had received plenty of non translated material that all told could have quite easily raised our chances of preventing the attack to levels that are almost disgusting. Indeed even now the US has mounds of Arabic material that has either been poorly translated or not translated at all because they got rid of all the men and women who were willing to put their lives on the line for a military so prejudice that it would kick them out for something as unrelated as their sexuality.

  So what is the cost of Homophobia? 2,740. That’s how many people that died in the 9/11 terrorist attack, that’s almost three thousand people who likely all would have much as many talented people working in the military and intelligence agencies as possible. Not only this but the aftermath of the event has cost the lives of thousands more US soldiers, I’m pretty sure a few dozen reporters, and that doesn’t even count all the people who have died in Afghanistan and Iraq that aren’t related to these organizations that have died in the cross fire or shrapnel. Likewise the war itself could have been avoided (since its very hard to invade a nation if you aren’t already at war or have good reason to get going there).

  So the next time you see two men holding hands, or two women hugging and kissing before going about their day, and you feel a sickness in your stomach try to remember that that feeling cost the lives of thousands of people and for what? Because of some dark disgusting misinformed preconceptions you have about homosexuals? I hate to sound overly passionate about the topic because it might take away from my point but I am hard pressed to understand.

  People might think that prejudices are harmless when not directly hurting people, but in the end they cost the lives of far more people. It only takes a little nationally supported prejudice to cost the lives of tens of millions of people. Few people deserve to die and even that is questionable, in the end it is never the fault of one person for the actions of that one person, there are many variables that come into a strong collaborative image to make each and every one of us. However you can be certain in a country of dissension and judgmentalism, you will generate many many people who are destined for an early death.

Notes:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE1DD1038F933A15752C0A9639C8B63 – 2005 Article on the topic, there are literally 10’s of thousands of them on the internet. Have an adventure and go google surfing, it’s an enlightening endeavor sometimes.

At what point is it Murder?

2 years ago
by Rico Penguin in

  Now I’m not trying to start an agenda to end smoking. As anyone who regulars here they know that I am pretty lax on my feelings towards drugs. If you want to do them and keep me apart from it I’m completely cool with it. Indeed there is a strong correlation between the legality of a substance and the crime related to it…which I suppose could go without saying.

  But my question today is to what point does ingesting a dangerous substance go from being legal to illegal? Surely if I were to start dropping as much arsenic as there is in one cigarette into strangers drinks I would be arrested quite quickly and charged with multiple crimes. Perhaps even attempted murder.

  How much of the chemicals in airborne drugs make it into the exhale? The vast majority of oxygen we inhale is exhaled without being processed. It goes along to think that the chemicals taken in through drug use also have a pretty copious outtake. So if it is perfectly legal to introduce this material in the air to strangers without their acceptance would it likewise be legal to take the same substances and pour them unknowingly into people’s drinks?

   This carries over into religious beliefs as well. Suicide is illegal. However the question is how fast does the degeneration of your health have to be before it is considered suicide? Surely few people would argue that cigarettes shorten a persons lifespan, isn’t that what suicide is? Similarly alcohol is a poison, wouldn’t one figure that poisoning yourself is a sin?

   It is often treated as a black and white situation. However I’m finding issue with locating that switch. It may seem a bit ridiculous but take a minute and see if you can separate the point when dangerous substances go from being illegal to legal (or vice versa).

  PS. What you may find far more enlightening than this little romp into the subjective universe is probably the most fascinating article from cracked.com: The Monkey Sphere. If you read only one other thing for the rest of today make it this.

Principle of Fairness: Relation of Consent to Justness (Part 2 of 2)

2 years ago
by Rico Penguin in

The final take on the concept of Consent is one that hopes to gain the scale ability both in terms of size of groups as well as the daunting task of long term commitments. In this form the act of consenting lasts only as long as a person feels they would rather be in the deal than not, accepting benefits in full knowledge of the deal, which includes the benefits and the negatives. In Layman’s once again this is the idea that you pay for what you like and not for what you don’t. The payment does not have to be monetary but that’s the simplest way to understand the concept.

Returning to the pub for a real world example we have the group decide that if anyone wants to be part of the group they just need to pay for a pitcher when it comes to be their turn. In this system they can safely get larger or smaller and anyone can be part of the deal for any length of time. A person who decides that they’d like to be a part of the deal for a few years can decide at a later date that this setup is no longer working for them. Indeed the act of losing members while raising the financial investment per member also lengthens the time between purchases. In this system nobody is expected to invest beyond their own interests and nobody is punishable for breaking away, assuming that at no point do they receive the benefits of the service without putting in for the negatives.

This system is self regulating and in that manner it is useful in all situations. Take a nation of a million fold, they decide together that anyone in the nation may decide on what they do or do not want their tax money to go towards. However anything they do not invest in they cannot reap the benefits of. So those who refuse to pay into the taxes for health care would not be able to get it without paying during their checkups, those who don’t pay into the education system could not send their children without paying, the same would be said for all the various services across the nation.

Under the assumption that people will pay for what they need, the services will become more well funded as more people require them which will cause the services (under proper management) to expand and accommodate the larger numbers. As less people desire a service the funding will cut back and likewise the number of persons using that service cuts back. Services that few or no people desire, for example biological weaponry, would eventually fall apart from lack of funding. Taxes likewise would rise and fall in accordance with the services that people actively desire.

This also addresses an argument raised by Robert Nozick, who equated taxation to forced labor. In Nozick’s example taxation is a forced system that all parties within a nation (or group) agree upon by living in that area or being a part of that system. However as established earlier this implied agreement is not a consistent nor effective form of contract and indeed there must be a much more interactive and dynamic system to provide the least unjust (ideally entirely just) system possible.

This form of taxation is no longer forced, it becomes more of a subscription based investment system. Anyone who does not agree with a certain project can designate their funding to not be used in that project. Under an honest and open governing body this creates a nation where there would be no reason to feel that taxes are a negative factor. It is my strong opinion that the negative attitude towards taxation is not towards the nature of taxing itself but the rather global nature of unreasonable taxation. Every current nation has large sums of money spent on projects that a vast majority of its people do not agree with nor would they pay into if they had an actual choice. Unfortunately taxation is an ultimatum in modern civilizations rather than an actual choice. So while I strongly disagree that any taxation equates to forced labor I would agree with Nozick that modern day itineration’s of taxation however do.

There is are problems with this system however. We must assume that any civilization under this system would be entirely populated by sound minded individuals with each person having a sufficient level of education to help guide their decisions. We also require that there be no false advertising in what projects actually do when applying for what a citizens taxes should go towards. Both of these assumptions are quite unreasonable when looking at all current and past nations, indeed it might be impossible to begin a system such as this without starting an entirely new society comprised of either persons who had proper education, civic pride, and proper cognitive functioning or a society of persons who have never been indoctrinated into any of the current or past civilizations. The latter is an obvious impossibility without the extreme step of taking a large clutch of infants and placing them somewhere, and the former is highly difficult given the nature of modern nationhood (massive countries covering every habitable inch of the Earth).

Another issue that is raised by this system is to whether or not one must have consent under certain situations. If a person is currently carrying a pathogen that has a 100% mortality rate, is spread through various high traffic means like air or contact, and they live near or could get near a populated area is it unjust to restrain them? While it is true a properly functioning person would likely quarantine themselves for those who won’t is it fair to place them under containment until either a cure is found or they die? It was already established before that one cannot coerce others into an agreement and that they must accept the deal once understanding both the positive and the negative involved but in this sort of incident is that a set of rules that must be adhered to?

In this instance all four possible views of consent above seem to fall short. While it may seem improper (and uncomfortably utilitarian) to harm one or few to protect many it also seems obvious that in situations like this that a blind faith approach to fairness and justice could very quickly lead to incredibly bad outcomes. While it seems like an unlikely situation previous real world events, historically there have been 18 major plagues that have cost hundreds of millions of lives. The Black Death alone killed upwards of 75 million people.

These are extreme cases, but they must be addressed before they become an actual issue again. It may be required that there be a formula for all the most common situations, as with the fourth version of consent and to supplement it with a separate by similar doctrine for extreme circumstances. Laws in Physics break down whenever explaining a super massive or super small object(s), it would seem unreasonable to assume that any principle of command would likewise require special rules or supporting principles in extreme situations either large or small.

— So that’s it. If you notice anything or have any questions feel free to drop them by me. It’s due on Wednesday so I still have time to edit it.

Principle of Fairness: Relation of Consent to Justness (Part 1 of 2)

2 years ago
by Rico Penguin in

Since the dawn of the first civilizations, and likely before, there was the question of how to most effectively govern. Whereas a migrating people can place distance between them and those they disagree with the nature of sedentary societies places us in the position of addressing problems and addressing them in the fairest possible manner. There have been no less than 50 globally recognized forms of governing bodies, each has attempted to address this problem, from Adhocracy to Timocracy the goal has been to provide the most efficient form of government. To provide the most appreciated environment with the least amount of resources and to cause the lowest possible levels of dissent amongst the citizens. Few things end a governing body quicker than a nation of unhappy citizens. The goal of this paper is to discuss one important problem, known as the Principle of Fairness, this is a problem of when actions or situations are just and likewise when all parties have officially recognized and agreed to the actions or situations. Likewise while discussing this issue it will establish some Locke’s and Nozick’s principles and show how they can be used in much broader ways than previously proposed.

The first important venture is to establish what exactly the Principle of Fairness is: If a group of persons (any number above 1) are engaged in a mutually beneficial, cooperative venture, which requires restrictions of their liberties , then all those who have submitted to the restrictions are entitled to the following benefits so as to make the agreement fair:

· All in the agreement must receive the benefits.

· All parties must be made better off by the entire deal.

· If the above two do not detail your interaction with the deal then the agreement has nothing to do with you.

· Finally you cannot be forced (or coerced in any manner) into the deal. IE. All parties must consent.

Some important conundrums need to be immediately addressed before moving on. Preconceived notions of right and wrong may need to be placed aside to freely examine this topic. It is possible to create a situation where slavery would fit into the above stipulations, which places those supporting it in a tough spot. I a set of guidelines can be treated in a manner where they become unjust then those guidelines require further detail and examination before they can be properly used in a civilization.

For example if a farmer has copious supplies of food while nearby citizens are on the brink of starvation the farmer could provide the citizens with a deal that they will sign on as slaves and work at the whims of the farmer. In return they will be fed when necessary so as to not die. In this example all parties agree fairly, each is better off by the deal, and there is no force or coercion involved in the deal. So in this way slavery can be a fair agreement in at the very least one case.

Secondly we must address the situation of justness, or justice, as these are topics that become highly subjective. For the sake of uniformity I will use the definition of justice in holdings defined by Nozick. It has three stages (or principles): Firstly is the principle of acquisition, for acquisition to be just it essentially must be gained from nature and be something nobody else has ever owned before. Likewise if using personal skills to convert a piece of nature you are establishing that it is yours, for example carpentry turns wood (a natural resource) into a structure (a personal good) this is a concept championed by Locke and is known as the "Theory of Property". Second is the principle of transfer which is just iff (if and only if) it is done voluntarily. This principle and all others used in this paper will assume a state of properly functioning cognition. Thirdly is the principle of rectification which requires the prompt repair of previous unjust acquisitions or transfers. Such as giving a merchant the money they undercharged you after a transaction.

Now that we’ve established a definition of justice, which while designed for transactions of goods, does well in all situations involving just interactions we can move on to the four most prominent definitions of consent.

· They honestly assert to everybody that they want to be in the deal.

OR

· Consent is when you accept the benefits in full knowledge of the deal.

OR

· By Enjoying the benefits they consent to the negatives.

OR

· They would rather be in the deal than not and they accept the benefits in full knowledge of the deal (In Layman’s; Only pay for the services you agree with).

The issue of honesty is one that is brought up both by Rawls in the "Theory of Justice" and by Nozick in "Anarchy, State, and Utopia." For Rawls it was covered by the hypothetical Original Position, in essence this places those establishing an agreement in a position of full cognitive range but removes their personal selfishness that leads to unequal distribution of essential resource (IE. Primary Goods). This paper will assume a similar position to show that even at a near best case scenario these systems may come up short.

There is a level of omniscience that is required for a being to earnestly assert a decision without unknowingly placing themselves in a position that they would not retrospectively have entered. It is not unusual for a person to enter into an agreement without realizing the full extent of their involvement in the deal. Be it from overlooking fine print in a contract or more reasonably being easily distracted.

For example, if there was a group of friends at a bar that decided they wanted to drink pitchers of beer for the rest of the night and that it would be best if all of them one after one another paid for a pitcher. This way for the cost of one pitcher (per person) they would get a return of five pitchers. On the surface this is a pretty fair trade. However in this agreement one of the people did not realize that they would have to pay for a pitcher. Perhaps they misunderstood or perhaps the decision for each person to pay was an implied cost of entering into the deal. By this definition of consent they have entered into the deal and have thus agreed to the position of purchasing a pitcher when it becomes their turn however equally so they appear to be a victim of circumstance.

Further still it could simply be a case of cultural differences. During a trip to Japan I decided that it would be nice of me to clean up the dining area after we ate. To a casual onlooker the response looked like I had beaten their first born. This was a simple case of cultural differences, whereas in the west it is implied that such a deed is a courteous act, in the east it can come off as insulting for the guest to clean the owners home.

This form of consent only functions properly in a position where absolutely nothing is implied, because humans are lacking omniscience all parts of the agreement must be laid out bluntly. Likewise this definition is victim of carelessness, accidental omissions can greatly affect the final decision of party members.

This problem is addressed by the second definition in which consent is only achieved when the member has not only asserted that they accept the deal but likewise they have accepted it with full knowledge of the deal. The goal here is to eliminate the necessity of an impossible trait (namely omniscience) by creating an agreement where all unmentioned information is superfluous to whether or not the member will agree to the decision.

Returning once more to the pub we look at the same situation but this time following the second definitions take on consent. This time it was made absolutely certain that everyone knew they would have to make a financial investment into the deal. They would buy in a clockwise order and continue until the end of the night. Everyone gives a very obvious form of consent such as verbal or written and the participation begins. What happens however when they reach the end of the night and one person has purchased less than anyone else? Or perhaps they go in such a manner that one person never buys one. In either case one member (at the very least) always comes out better than the rest of the group, they have all the gains of the investment, with less or none of the negatives.

This particular problem is merely a nuisance in these small numbers however the litigation required when dealing with millions of people could be nearly impossible. Indeed the most common form of this agreement, known as a loophole, is the cause of more than a billion dollars annually of lost income for the US government. Whenever a rule set does not work on the micro level and cannot function on the macro (or vice versa) it requires reworking.

Once again this problem is addressed by the third definition of consent. If a member enjoys the benefits they are consenting to the negatives, by consenting to the negatives one must assume that those negatives will befall them. So now the parties are honestly joining in the agreement, they are doing so with full knowledge of the deal, and finally they are doing so with full consent of the negatives of the deal. On first glance this appears to be a pretty solid deal. However just as the previous form of consent was weak depending on the size of the party, this particular formation is weak when examining it over a period of extended time.

Again at the pub we have a group that has agreed upon buying pitchers for the group, each has accepted that it will be a financial investment, and whenever someone doesn’t pay equally to the rest they start off the series of buys the next time the group returns. However the deal is made so that each is contractually bound to return to this setup every night for the next 5 years. There is absolutely no coercion and all members enter into the agreement with full understanding of the positives and negatives they will be receiving as a result of the deal. However a year or two into the deal one of the members has a change of heart. Let’s say that the member has recently become a parent and must be home (and sober) to properly take care of their child at night. At the point of original agreement they could very well have had no idea that they would be becoming a parent, they did not knowingly consent to a situation that they would soon have to break.

Indeed it is not at all uncommon for people to regret a decision after a certain amount of time under the ramifications of that agreement. Intuitively the new parent is more a victim of circumstance than an unjust or unfair dealer in the agreement. As before, a system that does not function properly in a reasonably present situation, such as the one outlined above, is not a system that should be adhered to. It should be examined and refined to more completely cover all possible outcomes and to produce the least amount of situations where someone is placed unknowingly into an unjust, unfair, or otherwise punishable position.

  To be continued and finished tomorrow. I just noticed that it was going on pretty long. I have to reach 4k words with this essay, it is currently 19 words below 2k. So this is going to be quite difficult without either having an epiphany or BSng…the latter of which I am not a big fan of doing.

Go to Top