That computer would be limited by an immense lack of information, as well as the fact that stupid greedy people need to program it.
... Riiiiiiiiiiiight.
Looks like the only way we'll have a totally effective government is if we're ruled by either alien-robots or a non-emotional alien. Although I can't say I know of many emotional aliens, so I think we'd be okay if we just used the first one we find...
There are many great social thinkers such as Locke that have already addressed similar problems and expressed that the human race will never have a perfect system, it's just part of being human, however we have to do the best that we can. And we can romanticize about some being greater than ourselves swooping in and saving us, however that really doesn't solve anything.
That maybe if this kind of speech isn't protected, maybe we shouldn't protect any kind of offensive speech. Maybe there's a lot of religious people who get offended at blasphemy, maybe we should ban that.
Either it's all okay, or none of it is. I know that's not a very nuanced position but, honestly, some of you people need to grow up and realize that freedoms come with a price. You don't get them for free. The price you pay for freedom of speech is that you will eventually have to hear someone say something stupid and hateful and vile. Ignore it, ridicule it, argue with it, but don't try to say that it ought to be banned.
I agree to an extent, however there already is this "grey area" you wrote about. There are in fact multiple types of speech that are illegal.
The Constitution under a strict interpretation was initially meant to protect the property rights of the American ruling class upon the establishment of the country. It was written by classic liberals who believed in the freedom to property life and liberty. The freedom of property was designed to prevent a monarchic system from being set up. Thus protecting the businessmen and plantation owners from competition.
Yes and no. First the Constitution was not established when the country was, in wasn't until 1781 that it was established, several years after the revolution and American independence. For a short while the Articles of Confederation where the ruling doctrine in American. The framers were as you said, afraid of another monarchy and therefor gave a lot of power to the states, too much in fact. When the AOC failed, the framers used what they had learned to draft the Constitution and create the system of checks and balances we enjoy today. These checks and balances are what prevent monarchy's, not the property rights.
To say that the Constitutional was initially meant to protect property rights is a stretch. In fact a lot of the rights that we enjoy as Americans come directly from the Bill of Rights, which wasn't initially in the first drafts of the Constitution, and was only added because states threatened to veto the new Constitution if the citizens rights where expressly written.
Furthermore, there is no explicit freedom of property in the Constitution,( there the 5th Amendment which says that you cannot deprive one of his property without due process) it is an implied power inferred by the 9th Amendment using language in from the rest of the document (including the 5th amendment for example).
- You cannot spread hate speech
- You are not supposed to openly spread obscenity
- You are not supposed to say things that are offensive to children
1. It is actually unconstitutional to make laws that prevent hate speech with a few exceptions, the Supreme Court in there ruling clearly stated that they do no feel that the Church used any form of libel, obscenity, or words that are used to insight anarchy.
2. Again, while obscenity can illegal in certain situation, the Supreme Court felt that is was not relevant in Snyder v. Phelps 09-751, they even referred to the First Amendment freedom of assembly/protest (peaceful) in the majority opinion.
3. No where is language offensive to children, with special exceptions such as schools, directly prohibited
The first issue with that would be you would have to fundamentally change the Constitution of the United States, which is extremely difficult to do, especially since the people you need to change the constitution would be the ones your trying to replace.
I like to keep each world to a relative time period / technological era, for instance I don't build power plants if there are medieval castles and so on. I designate certain areas (ex. mountain biomes, desert biome...) with a theme. So in a desert biome I would build like pyramids and oasis's and so on, building with sand and sandstone. In the mountains I might stick to a more appropriate building style and build with stone and cobblestone.
How can you get to the nether with a pick axe to mine the obsidian needed with?
Using a bucket found in a dungeon you can place lava and water springs to make obsidian, all you then need is a flint and tinder, obtaining the iron from a dungeon, light it and presto.
0
They would probably enjoy it.
0
There are many great social thinkers such as Locke that have already addressed similar problems and expressed that the human race will never have a perfect system, it's just part of being human, however we have to do the best that we can. And we can romanticize about some being greater than ourselves swooping in and saving us, however that really doesn't solve anything.
0
I agree to an extent, however there already is this "grey area" you wrote about. There are in fact multiple types of speech that are illegal.
Just an interesting fact...
0
Yes and no. First the Constitution was not established when the country was, in wasn't until 1781 that it was established, several years after the revolution and American independence. For a short while the Articles of Confederation where the ruling doctrine in American. The framers were as you said, afraid of another monarchy and therefor gave a lot of power to the states, too much in fact. When the AOC failed, the framers used what they had learned to draft the Constitution and create the system of checks and balances we enjoy today. These checks and balances are what prevent monarchy's, not the property rights.
To say that the Constitutional was initially meant to protect property rights is a stretch. In fact a lot of the rights that we enjoy as Americans come directly from the Bill of Rights, which wasn't initially in the first drafts of the Constitution, and was only added because states threatened to veto the new Constitution if the citizens rights where expressly written.
Furthermore, there is no explicit freedom of property in the Constitution,( there the 5th Amendment which says that you cannot deprive one of his property without due process) it is an implied power inferred by the 9th Amendment using language in from the rest of the document (including the 5th amendment for example).
0
1. It is actually unconstitutional to make laws that prevent hate speech with a few exceptions, the Supreme Court in there ruling clearly stated that they do no feel that the Church used any form of libel, obscenity, or words that are used to insight anarchy.
2. Again, while obscenity can illegal in certain situation, the Supreme Court felt that is was not relevant in Snyder v. Phelps 09-751, they even referred to the First Amendment freedom of assembly/protest (peaceful) in the majority opinion.
3. No where is language offensive to children, with special exceptions such as schools, directly prohibited
0
0
0
I liked the pig fishing, thought that was very clever and tough.
One question, how did you make that huge sphere made of glowstone?
Anyways, great job
0
0
Using a bucket found in a dungeon you can place lava and water springs to make obsidian, all you then need is a flint and tinder, obtaining the iron from a dungeon, light it and presto.
0
0
0
IGN: climber13