You need two circles through the existing circle to get another point for the line which comes about from the intersection of the two circles. The first circle has to be placed correctly. The second circle's placement is dependent on the first.

When Trump hit China with tariffs, Netgear moved its production to other Asian countries. But for how long? Probably a safer bet is Asus for any networking equipment.

Another interesting site, especially for Americans :

https://www.americanmanufacturing.org/made-in-america/

Android app.

double checked but it really is 4.11. Maybe you need a certain amount of stars.? I have 24 in delta.

@Banno any hints for 4.11?

Well, we could put something like that to a vote. I'm not married to a number, 2 is what I'm used to as a lawyer and if life and death situation can be decided in 4 rounds...

Another idea could be to have debaters submit their opening positions blindly and then have them start a debate. But this has benefits and disadvantages. Main benefit will probably be that differences in definitions and usage of terms will be laid bare early on.

I think debates could improve if a limit to the amount posts is established. 2 each should be enough.

2.7 with only 1 line is fun. I had to think about that again.

Then at least with regard to the Grundnorm we're in agreement. I hated it already in my first year of law school. Hart always made the most sense, for a legal positivist that is.

Yeah, I have that solution in my history but I no longer understand why this gives me the correct points. If I ignore 1.5 for now I can solve at least until 2.5 and ongoing.

Meanwhile, still stuck on 1.5 :rofl:

Take the base line, extend it to the left with the length of the diagonal, extend it to the right with the vertical length, divide that total length by 2 and you have your point.

My inclination is to consider the law as something which derives from our interaction with each other and the rest of the world of which we're a part, — Ciceronianus the White

That's a bit of an "open door" as we say in Dutch. Dancing could be a source of law based on such a description. I was hoping to go a bit deeper than that!

https://chinanever.com/categories/phones-not-made-in-china they have some other categories as well.

Not for me thanks. I remember that if you don't really understand why a solution works you'll get stuck again at a later point. So if someone explains it, I tend to not really understand why unless I figure it out for myself.

I just started again. Already stuck at 1.5. Can't understand how I ever got to theta! :sweat:

thanks. Google translate resulted in fomenting legible and understandable. :up:

Are you getting all the stars? I only got all the stars for beta and never got beyond theta level 1.

Do you have links in English to those cases against inditex and zara? Could be a blueprint for more.

In an ideal world, we would be raising tariffs. Not a democracy? Bam, 25% Mark up. Human rights abuses? Here's another 25%.

I'm all for global economic integration because ultimately that's the way to peace but the playing field needs to be level and workers protected.

I got stuck regularly in this game and never finished it. I did complete that one about 2 years ago and just started it again and I'm stuck in level 2. :cry: BTW, from the same makers xsection! Which I did finish and I'm sure you will like.

I'll have a look if I accidentally remember how 7.1 goes.

So I've just written to an electronics review site to start including information about sourcing of materials and start taking human rights abuses into account when awarding rewards. Especially in the cheaper segments it's all Chinese products.

It's a pretty well tread argument. But why do we want to know whether international "law" is actually law? Would anything change about international relationships if it were called, say international norms? — Echarmion

Does anything change because we discussed it here? I'm discussing it because I think it's interesting and I'm in a good mood which means I'm more open to different viewpoints.

Why would the first law not be established by procedure? The procedure doesn't need to be established by law. A constitutional assembly has / is a procedure, and isn't necessarily itself based on a law.

Indeed if we did make an empirical study of laws, I think one can argue that laws are characterized by a process from which they derive their legitimacy, which is either a specific procedure or the more general process of custom. — Echarmion

If the procedure isn't law, what binding force does it have? None whatsoever. So it's entirely unsatisfying to consider it a requirement for a law. It's not the process that matters, it's the performative act of one or more persons, their intent on the outward effects of those performative acts and the social understanding and acceptance of a community of that intent and effect. Such performative acts can certainly be a process, for instance where codification is concerned, but can be as "formless" as one person making a promise to another.

On the other hand, if a judge or chamber sets a precedent by a specific ruling, that ruling will acquire the force of law only after it is established. And I think it's not convincing to argue that judgements only apply or "discover" laws. Every judgement also generates new law, even in civil law traditions. Law is in this sense better understood as a living matter, consisting of a constant feedback loop between custom, codification and application. — Echarmion

Yes, precedents create law too. But when a judge applies a customary rule, the rule existed prior to the judge declaring it law. It was law before the judgment or the judge wouldn't have included it in his judgment. The content of law is living, sure. I never suggested otherwise. I'm also not alluding to objective sources of law - I specifically disavowed that early on.

Hart remained sweetly superficial, describing and classifying law without explaining what law is. That was his point of course. I happen to think he's missing something even if there's a lot in Hart that I agree with. There's some overlap with what I'm trying to get at here and Hart's distinction between habit and social rule and how and why those differ. For me personally though, Hart's main worth was in identifying some aspects that are necessary for a law to be a good law (such as, for instance, universality).

Report. Report. Report.

I have a lower tolerance for low quality posters in certain areas than other moderators, which means I often don't propose a potential ban anticipating that but I will quickly ignore those posters as I'm still part of this site for fun. And reading crappy posts just to moderate them isn't my idea of fun. So I miss plenty of stuff "going wrong" on this site.

And I tend to not touch Philosophy of Religion with a ten foot pole since I think it doesn't have a place on a philosophy forum. Other moderators clearly disagree.

If you think certain behaviour is banworthy, let a moderator know via a private message. It doesn't necessarily result in a ban for obvious reasons, but reports are always discussed by the moderators.

Mainly this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_norm

Hanover and I have a long-standing disagreement about whether, for instance, international law is law or not.

And I disagree that all definitions are arbitrary. If we are attempting to describe reality, in this case a sociological phenomena like law, just making stuff up doesn't really cut it. Just including a "procedural requirement" in the definition of law doesn't resolve much. Is this procedural law a law? Yes, it was done by procedure. Until you end up with the first law, which wasn't established by procedure and we have to conclude it isn't law, subsequently invalidating all laws deriving from it.

It also ignores the role of customary law. When a judge applies a rule based on custom, the judgment recognises a certain custom as law but it was law before the judge recognised it as such otherwise he would not have had an obligation to apply it in his judgment.

I agree generally with what you said, but I think you underestimate the significance of bargaining power and that complex interactions involve complex agreements that go far beyond the four corners of a contract, especially when that contract is a highly complex and politically sensitive issue like a treaty.

Consider your father told you that if you do the wash, he'll pay you $10. You do the wash, but he doesn't pay. Next week he asks you to do the wash, you protest over your outstanding debt, and then he explains how your debt to him is far greater than his to you and that the repercussions of your not doing the wash will far outweigh the relief of not having to do that wash. And so what do you do? You do the wash. — Hanover

Is this still a contract though? Or has it become an order? Or is it a promise made under duress? That's not to say orders can't form the basis of laws but I generally consider treaties the exchange of promises. A treaty established under duress (treaty of Versailles?) doesn't seem like an actual promise, just as me promising a mugger to "empty my pockets" isn't much of a promise either.

While it is true I spent very little time on bargaining power, which might give the impression I think little of it, I didn't really deal with it because I didn't think it's relevant for this question. The reason I don't think it fundamentally changes what I said is because where bargaining power is successfully exercised, it skews the results of what one party gets out of it as opposed to the other party. So the promises exchanged are more favourable for one party than the other. However, I don't think it fundamentally affects the underlying rule that promises ought to be kept because this is implied in a promise.

I'll certainly accept that there will be grey areas where duress, orders and promises cannot be clearly distinguished. And I think it's making me realise my idea of law is incomplete because where it concerns contracts and treaties, the basis is cooperative when promises are exchanged freely and only if done freely can we reasonably derive implicit rules from such acts. Orders can be given based on powers freely transferred at some earlier time and if those orders move to far away from what a population in general would agree to if they were free to negotiate terms themselves, I guess we get bad law.

But back to treaties. In my view, a way of accepting breaking treaties "for convenience", is arguing that promises made by governments (legal entities with legal personality) are fundamentally different from promises people make but that seems inconsistent with the fact that trust in government (by its citizens and, by extension, validly existing legal entities) is based on the government keeping its word. The only thing that really changes is to whom the promises are made, which in this case is another government. I don't see how the nature of the recipient of the promise, changes the nature of a promise itself though.

I'm also wondering how you see the Supremacy Clause in relation to a ratified UN Charter. What status do you think the rules of the UN Charter have in the US legal system, if any, taking into consideration the Supremacy Clause, and why?

EDIT: I realise I didn't reply to all your points. Sorry, time constraints and I don't want to put off answering for too long as that tends to kill discussions.

What are you trying to accomplish? That I'll suddenly change my behaviour because some internet random says I'm a coward and don't have integrity? What are the chances of that happening considering your chosen approach?

I'm happy to discuss moderation choices if you have something that resembles an argument. So far your comments here do not invite any sort of discussion.

Think about what you want out of this conversation and reply accordingly (or not). I'll interpret any further comments along the lines as above as venting and not actually about moderation decisions. I'll happily ignore the former.

I don't have balls so yeah, easy enough.

There's nothing inconsistent about it, you're just disappointed. You're welcome to vent in this thread.

The reason for banning has previously been given by Baden. He's previously been discussed by moderators for several reasons, given the benefit of the doubt before, but finally banned due to lack of improvement.

We're generally lax with moderating swearing and name calling because this is the internet after all and if it's accompanied with decent philosophy, we tend to not do anything. 3017amen has been on our radar for shitty posts for 2 years already.

But this is what it ultimately is, circular. You have a constitution usually, which is a subtype of law requiring special majority to change, that determines how laws can be passed. Of course, behind those procedural requirements there are philosophical ideas, in case of democracies the legislative organ consists of representatives that are voted in by the people etc... So ultimately yes laws are rules that are devised according to a procedure that a certain community has decided on to be the procedure of passing laws. — ChatteringMonkey

It is a theory but it's not recognised as such in analytical jurisprudence. The closest to it would probably be legal positivism which suffers from "turtles all the way down". Kelsen reaches the undefinable and conceptually useless "Grundnorm", which is just "natural law" dressed up in different wording. I don't like the theory for the reason given in the previous post, the weakness inherent to it in establishing what is and isn't law and the fact I'm a firm believer in bad law, not being law. Civil disobedience is required sometimes.

Yeah enforcement isn't necessary for something to be a law, it just makes the law largely ineffective. It is about intent and expectations, they are normative after all, but I wouldn't say that is what makes something a law. Whether something is a law or not is determined by it being approved in a legislative organ or not. — ChatteringMonkey

I reject procedural requirements because you end up with circular reasoning. Procedural laws are after all laws themselves, so you end up with: the law is only law when passed in accordance with the law. That strikes me as rather meaningless.

Splitting hairs a bit probably... but signing a treaty is done by some executive power. In itself that doesn't lend legal power to that treaty. It's only after ratification (by a legislative power) that it gets that status in an internal legal order of that country... and even then, laws do conflict with eachother (even aside from treaties), it will depend on the internal rules of conflict resolution and hierarchy of norms which law should take precedence. — ChatteringMonkey

I mentioned this explicitly in my previous post but I tend to just refer to "signing" to avoid long sentences. I assumed current posters here know this and will forgive the inaccuracy.

We should get @Tobias in here as well. :smile:

I'm not convinced I'm arguing for higher laws or principles and I'm not sure what I said that makes you interpret what I said this way. Pacta sunt servanda is a rule of customary international law and not a higher principle. I'll try to describe how I get to that rule by first discussing contracts and then apply that to treaties.

In my view, there are rules implied in performative acts. Let's imagine a society without any courts, means of enforcement or existing rules to regulate our behaviour. When we enter into a contract, doing so implies rules that arise from that act itself for that act to make sense. Let's say I'll wash your clothes in return for a meal.

You say "I promise if you wash my clothes I'll cook you a meal" and I say "If you are going to cook me a meal I'll wash your clothes". Implied here is that if I don't do anything, you'll never cook me a meal. We don't need enforcement or courts to "sanction" my non-performance.

Now, I do my part of the bargain but you don't. You broke your promise. But you promised this in the first place because you knew you would otherwise have to wash your own clothes. That is then the second implied rule, if one party performs their side of a bargain, the other party must do so too. Or to put it differently, I have a right to your performance. Why is this the case? Because otherwise you could've demanded or forced my performance and avoided making a promise but you had to give a promise because those options were not available to you for whatever reason. And not keeping your promise is sanctioned as well but less directly: I'll never enter into a bargain with you under these sort of circumstances again and if other people are aware, they will avoid bargaining with you as well, worried they'll be abused.

Now, of course, if you have a resource that everybody wants, you start to get a power imbalance. For instance, if you have all the food people will still need to bargain with you and accept the risk of abuse. That doesn't, however, negate the implicit rules established above with regard to promises. People will still expect you to keep the promise and this would become apparent when you would want to barter about other things than your monopolised resource. Chances are, in fact, that you'd get less favourable conditions as a result.*

The entering into a contract creates expectations between us about the nature of promises and rights and it also creates expectations in a wider community if they are aware of the promises we made. As a result, we've established rules intended to regulate behaviour through performative acts (two promises). It's these expectations and the underlying intent that is aimed at creating such expectations that, in my view, create law.

I don't think this is fundamentally different where it concerns treaty obligations. The system of national laws sets out that any treaty signed and ratified is accepted as binding and that national laws will be set aside in favour of the treaty rules. If this is not the case, then why bother including a supremacy clause and go through the public spectacle of voting on it (performative acts)? These are promises too and the direct sanction is that if you break treaties other signatories are not required to uphold their part of the bargain and the indirect sanction is waning of "soft power".

This is why I don't think enforcement is necessary for a rule to be law, because I think it's about intent and expectations; or, the meaning that arises from the promises made.

I hope that made sense and I wonder how much of this difference in views is the result of growing up in different legal traditions...

*This is precisely why I believe multilateralism is beneficial to everyone involved in the long run. But different discussion.

I don't know. I think a law without a remedy is only a recommendation. It reminds me of the exclusionary rule declared by the US Supreme Court for unreasonable searches and seizures. The Constitution doesn't say illegally seized evidence is to be excluded, but without fashioning that remedy, it's not much of a law. — Hanover

I think there's a fundamental difference then, which was exactly the reason I raised the example of inability to enforce first. A more extreme example, to tease out what you really mean then. Most extreme: it ain't a crime if you don't get caught.

But I suspect that's not your position. What about murder in far of places where there's no police to investigate? I don't think "don't murder" only becomes a recommendation as a result but is still the law. If for whatever reason 10 years from now there's plenty of police to investigate, all the murders committed during those 10 years would result in charges and possible convictions without the necessity to pass any "law" to do so. As you can see, I have trouble understanding exactly what such a rule would still mean to you.

I'm describing reality, not what ought to be. — Hanover

All laws describe what ought to be; they're normative after all.

What you're describing is what ought to be. If the House of Hanover passes a law that it never follows and it never enforces and no one gives a shit about it, I wouldn't call it a law. Its something, not sure what, but not much of a law. — Hanover

Why would the house of Hanover bother to do this? Obviously we pass laws, enter into treaties and contracts with the intent that the rules are followed, promises are kept and that counterparts have a reasonable expectation about what will happen. That some countries can decide to break those promises without signficant repercussions does not diminish that. I assume the US law system recognises the enforceability of treaty rules as law after signature and ratification?

At least that's how I understand the supremacy clause:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. — Constitution

I thought vaccination did lower spread as well, since not everybody gets sick and asymptomatic infection happens but also at a lower rate than symptomatic?

There's a difference between an inept police force and an intentional decision not to enforce the law. There's a significant difference, for example, in California now that they've legalized pot and the feds have indicated they won't enforce the federal law than there was 20 years ago when the law was laxly enforced.

If the US doesn't view the UN resolutions as truly binding and there's no way to get them to obey them, then in what meaningful way are they "law."?

You guys need to put GPS finders on your bikes. Just an idea. — Hanover

Of course there's a difference. I was responding to the idea that enforcement is a criteria between whether something is the law or isn't. I guess we agree then it's not enforceability per se?

Based on your comment then if the US promises to do something and puts that in writing then that promise doesn't bind it because there's no court to enforce it? Seems an interesting take on treaties, to say the least. Governments make all sorts of promises to each other that aren't enforceable but they tend to keep those promises for good reason. That's why pacta sunt servanda is considered customary law. The argument that the US can afford to break the law without repercussions is not an argument against the law in my view (especially when whenever they do it, they appeal to the rules they signed up to). It becomes an issue of politics and not law.

I know this but that doesn't mean it wasn't illegal by international law standards, which, by the way, the US tried to underline again by pretending SC 1441 gave implicit permission. The lack of an enforcement mechanism isn't an argument that something isn't part of the legal order. That would mean that bike theft would be legal in the Netherlands because 99% of them are not followed up and remain unresolved.

said the #£@@&# who won almost all of them in the past! :rage:

I think it's perfectly fine to come to that decision by yourself for yourself. What I reject is judging others for making different decisions in such situations. Here's the alternative view : I think you're weak that you're letting sentiment withhold you from making the decision that saves the most lives.

Both judgments are inappropriate in my view.

As an analogy, if there are 100 dishes and I offer you a choice between beef tacos and veal tacos and you choose beef, who decided what we had for dinner?

What was Arendt's argument that such a person has moral agency? Because I don't see it. You take someone's freedom, then you give him two shitty choices and we are to condemn one of them because...?

And when they don't we can blame the Democrats!