Some schools have traditionally displayed the Commandments on walls – not as part of religious studies lessons, but rather as tools for moral instruction for their student

Although not applicable to the world, should public money be available for the general public for abortions?

Does using public money benefit society?

CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE!!!

When is it allowed or ever?

During the final stages of World War II in 1945, the United States conducted two atomic bombings against Japan in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

After six months of intense strategic fire-bombing of 67 Japanese cities the Japanese government ignored an ultimatum given by the Potsdam Declaration. By executive order of President Harry S. Truman the U.S. dropped the nuclear weapon "Little Boy" on the city of Hiroshima on Monday, August 6, 1945, followed by the detonation of "Fat Man" over Nagasaki on August 9. These are the only attacks with nuclear weapons in the history of warfare.

Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki, with roughly half of the deaths in each city occurring on the first day. The Hiroshima prefectural health department estimates that, of the people who died on the day of the explosion, 60% died from flash or flame burns, 30% from falling debris and 10% from other causes. During the following months, large numbers died from the effect of burns, radiation sickness, and other injuries, compounded by illness. A plausible estimate of the total immediate and short term cause of death, 15–20% died from radiation sickness, 20–30% from flash burns, and 50–60% from other injuries, compounded by illness. Since then, more have died from leukemia (231 observed) and solid cancers (334 observed) attributed to exposure to radiation released by the bombs. In both cities, most of the dead were civilians.

Six days after the detonation over Nagasaki, on August 15, Japan announced its surrender to the Allied Powers, signing the Instrument of Surrender on September 2, officially ending the Pacific War and therefore World War II. Germany had signed its unavoidable Instrument of Surrender on May 7, ending the war in Europe. The bombings led, in part, to post-war Japan adopting Three Non-Nuclear Principles, forbidding the nation from nuclear armament.

The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender and the U.S.'s ethical justification for them is still debated.

First, I consider myself to be a libertarian socialist, but I'm not advocating for revolution or anything like that. I think it's perfectly reasonable to pursue increased liberty and increased equality from within the current system, allowing for the possibility of gradual changes without causing social instability.

Now, the issue I would like to discuss here is private property. I'm just going to rant a bit and hopefully through discussing the issue I will be able to clarify my own thoughts and position.

It seems to me that hoarding of private property is the source of the most extreme forms of inequality (in the western world anyways). I'm thinking of the way banks accumulate enormous sums of money, and the massive amount of wealth funneled up through conglomerate corporations that own companies and manufacturing, but are not even remotely connected to production or managerial processes of the companies they profit from. Even copyright laws, which allow companies to own and therefore profit from the work of others (how many musicians and artists have lost the right to their own work?). 

- Is it right to own something (preventing others from using it) even when you are not using it?

-Should people be able to inherit the wealth of their parents (even though they didn't work for it?).

Why should land developers be able to profit so much by acquiring what is often public land, and selling homes built by labourers who have no property rights to the things they build? If there was no private property, why would workers ever sell themselves to a company (making the company rich, but merely supporting him/herself)?

My alternative: Possession

The concept of the right to posssession is different from the right to private property. It does not allow people to own more than they can reasonably use, nor does it allow one person or group of persons to own land that they are not currently using.  Ownership is determined by possession of something and when you cease to possess something (for a long enough time anyways), you lose your right to own it. This would also mean that if a building was abandoned and someone else wanted to possess it, they could do so freely.

Anyways, there is a lot of food for thought in there so....

....What do you think?

Should water be treated a public good with easy access or a private good met by the supply and demand?

There is a large amount of publicity behind feminism, however, I see little about where a man fits within the world.  In the rush for equality, have we left men behind?

Is licenses for occupations all but government interference into the job market and particular industries restricting available positions in order to compete less and raise the cost of product or service.

Criminal disfranchisement is a huge issue in the world today, and one typical example of where this issue is a big problem is in America. Every year, over 30,000 votes are ignored because of criminal disfranchisement (when a criminal's right to vote is stripped away from them). Back in 2000, research shows that if criminals had been able to vote, Al Gore would've won the election by well over 30,000 votes.

“Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don't vote.”

A plea bargain is to obtain a lesser sentence by pleading guilty to an offence less grave than the worst one with which one is charged. Plea bargaining is now the pre-eminent method of case disposal in the USA.

Political correctness is what my grandmother called "Being polite".

We live in a diverse society. We need to maintain some level of peace and order and accommodate our differences for the sake of getting along. Calling people disparaging names is just rudeness, plain and simple. People who think they can avoid being "politically correct" are really just rude assholes.

Sorry, I called them "assholes". That's impolite. How about, "Their personalities are 'anally challenged'? No, that sounds retarded. I'll have to work to find a nice way to call someone an idiot. :)

This is an interesting topic because of how controversial it is.  Many studies have shown that Marijuana doesn't hurt your body as a whole as much as alcohol and other drugs do. Marijuana is also used in medical practices.  But does this mean we should make it legal for recreational use?

Recently, the city of Chicago has outlawed the sale of foie gras within city limits.  Essentially, this means that all restaurants are forbidden from serving it and that specialty meat shops cannot sell it.  What do you think about this decision?  Does a city government have the right to tell people what they can and cannot eat?  Take a stance and defend your position.  If you are unsure what exactly foie gras is, see this handy Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foie_gras

In a recent incident in Singapore, Dr Ionescu, a Romanian diplomat was alleged to have involved in a hit-and-run incident.  He had denied involvement so far.  Even if found guilty, the Singapore courts cannot impose penalty on him as he has claims to immunity.

Should the government have the absolute power into enforcing mandated working hours?

Should America refrain from implementing capital punishment? Or is it neccessary to keep our judicial system funtioning properly?

I believe that many of the new laws and bills that Obama is imposing on the American people are socialistic.  The only thing he is helping is the American people into a economic and moral downward spiral that is going to anihilate the America we know and love.  This started a long time ago with the not-so-simple idea to remove God from every aspect of education and the pledge.  Now Obama is delivering the final punch that is going to knock Americans down and off their feet.  I don't think that we will get up after this one guys!

Opinions?! I want to know if anybody else out there agrees with me on this issue. If u don't you can just get over it!!!  ~!V

The debate concerning the legitimacy of formal prayer in public schools channels two raging currents of American constitutional law. The regulation of education and the protection of religious liberty.

Accordingly, the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States provides inter alia that: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Thus religious liberty receives the dual protection of the establishment clause, that demands the separation of government and governmental functions from religious doctrine, and the free exercise clause, that precludes government interference with the exercise of religion.

Should we have governments or should we all choose what we want to do whenever we want to do it?

Animal Abuse Legislation in California

Are animal abusers even on the plain as sex offenders?