Slashdot Mirror

Again the government is coming in and choosing winners and losers. Why can't I focus on cold fusion? Why can't I focus on geothermal? What research does the DOE have that tells it that solar is where we should be concentrating our research? (none) But then there is no metric for this decision other than "Obama like solar" which is about as vapid as any other "green program" I've seen come out of the DOE. I wonder if it ever occurred to the well meaning busy-bodies in the government that the professionals in their respective industries might just know a little bit more than they do? And why 6? Why not 3? Shit why not 1? I mean, if there's no real metric for the demand other than "it would be cheaper" why not demand it be a lot cheaper?

While were at it why don't we demand that all cars get 1000mpg? Oh it can't be done with existing technology you say? You're just thinking inside the box! If you think outside the box then you'll see it's a reasonable demand. I'm not sure what box they're referring to, maybe it has to do with the social security lock box. Oh I get it. Think outside the box! Pff - I wasn't thinking outside the box!. I now understand!: .75 on every dollar contributed to social security is immediately borrowed by the government and .25 goes to current recipients, so: Think about all of your money we're taking outside of the social security lock box and spending it stupid ass bull shit!

Required reading:
I, Pencil: My Family Tree
The Law by Frederick Bastiat

Actually, I believe he would argue that some things don't need a "right".

He would say: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

These unalienable rights are called "Natural Law" and there is quite a bit written about it already.
Start with Thomas Paine's Common Sense. Very short, easy to read. Then move on to: The Law by Frederic Bastiat again, very short, very simple read. Both books are very old (>100 years old) and both books transcend time - when you read them you'll think they were written about today's events. It sounds like you're on the razors edge, I hope these books help bring you over to the light side.

Right on! These people need to read some Locke, Paine or Bastiat!

To discourage black voting, Southern Democrats resorted to violence. The white supremacist group Ku Klux Klan terrorized black political leaders to counter the Republican party's power base. Many blacks were killed (often lynched) for attempting to exercise their right to vote, for being members of political organizations and for attending school.

GOTTA LOVE THOSE DEMOCRATS!

Truman had to use a executive order to repeal segregation in the army because he knew it would be opposed by segregationist democrats in the south. One of the great democrat thinkers Pierre-Joseph Proudhon said famously "Property is theft!".

That you know none of this and you think that ""Liberalism" is the Enlightenment philosophy of individual liberty upon which the US was founded." proves to me that you are a product of our wonderful education system that is run by liberals. To help educate you: Liberalism is the push in the U.S. to bring European style socialism or communism to the U.S.A.

PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF! Read The Law.

Republicans are a terrible party! To the extent that they are like the Democrat party.

I don't stand in defense of the "Republican" brand, and there is no written dogma for "Republicans". "Conservative" on the hand is an ideology, it has tons of written "law" that says "thou shalt have the smallest government possible", "thou shalt tax as minimally as possible".

Vote for the more conservative republicans in the primaries and kick the RINOs out, don't vote for communists or socialists then complain about the government making your life difficult. Some republicans want to shrink the size of government. For example Ron Paul (and there are many others) is in charge of oversight of the federal reserve and is the author of End the Fed and wants nothing more than to shut the fed down.

So your idea that "the two parties are the same" is just demonstrably false.

This is a fact that cannot be contested: A vote for a Democrat is a vote to grow government, raise taxes and increase the role of government in your life.

This is conservative law: The Law by Frederick Bastiat (1801-1850). It is very short. If you have a problem with anything in this essay than you have a problem with the ideology. Don't paint the entire "right wing" with the same brush.

Is anyone else reminded of the Seinfeld episode where the whole apartment building had pictures up and Jerry didn't want his picture up? Or when Jerry didn't want to use a name tag? Real life is anonymity, you don't instantly know someone's name just because you walked up and talked to them. Did Voltare or The Artist (formerly known as Prince) have any problem hiding under their pseudonyms? I mean I can list great people who used pseudonyms all day long!

If I walk up and introduce myself as Ted, and strike up a conversation with you, you've now established a reputation with Ted. Not knowing that my name is actually Coolhand2120 is not going to change my reputation with you. Not knowing that I've said other things to other people as someone else is really none of your business anyway.

Needing to know what I've said to everyone is the product of a over inquisitive busy bodies. The fact the government wants to track what you're saying on the internet should give anyone paranoia. Do I have to register with my real name and government ID card before I talk in a town square now? The action (if it were to be purposed by government) in and of itself should be a violation of my right to free speech.


Frederick Bastiat (1801-1850) The Law

This reminds me of what Frederick Bastiat (1801-1850) said of the subject Socialism. Below is a link to his complete book "The Law" (in HTML format) and the specific part it this article reminded me of. The UK government in this situation is (attempting) to fulfill a need of society by commissioning the construction of a piece of 'public infrastructure' that the government deemed the society needed. A rather costly venture to be sure. But from whom did the government take this money? It takes it from the people who would have otherwise been implementing what was really needed, and who eventually did with what little the government left them.

The natural course of things, what Leonard E. Read called "the invisible hand", would have created the fully digital medical system that the government legislators commanded through the threat of violence (pay your taxes or else!) that an unnatural (Sc. useless, uncalled for) system be created. The end result, as so many other government ventures end, was a mess so epic that only the forceful hand of government could compel otherwise intelligent individuals to such total folly.

From The Law by Frederick Bastiat.

The Vicious Circle of Socialism

We shall never escape from this circle: the idea of passive mankind, and the power of the law being used by a great man to propel the people.

Once on this incline, will society enjoy some liberty? (Certainly.) And what is liberty, Mr. Louis Blanc?

Once and for all, liberty is not only a mere granted right; it is also the power granted to a person to use and to develop his faculties under a reign of justice and under the protection of the law.

And this is no pointless distinction; its meaning is deep and its consequences are difficult to estimate. For once it is agreed that a person, to be truly free, must have the power to use and develop his faculties, then it follows that every person has a claim on society for such education as will permit him to develop himself. It also follows that every person has a claim on society for tools of production, without which human activity cannot be fully effective. Now by what action can society give to every person the necessary education and the necessary tools of production, if not by the action of the state?

Thus, again, liberty is power. Of what does this power consist? (Of being educated and of being given the tools of production.) Who is to give the education and the tools of production? (Society, which owes them to everyone.) By what action is society to give tools of production to those who do not own them? (Why, by the action of the state.) And from whom will the state take them?

Let the reader answer that question. Let him also notice the direction in which this is taking us.

What you are describing is not entirely unprecedented even in the 20th century: Battle of Athens. Albeit was a much smaller scale and did not include nukes nor ...cannibalism? (seriously wtf?). Anyway returning veterans grew tired of local political corruption and ran the members out of office.

Common misconception. The Earliest writing I'm aware of touting the ideal self-made man was by Aristotle in 350 B.C, In The Nicomachean Ethic. Give it a read sometime, lots of it is interesting and timeless wisdom.

I'd be willing to bet a sufficiently dedicated historian could find an even older piece espousing that same philosophy.

Vodka is right of course, but in the super intelligent socialist infested collectivist fest that is Slashdot, where the majority of users believe that wealth is a privilege, that there is such a thing as a 'right to internet access' or a right to $good_that_is_not_a_right, that there is no such thing as property rights, and that democracy is 'fair', you are simply banging your head against the wall.

for all those that are open minded, who concede that they could be brainwashed but who wish not to be brainwashed, you need look no further than the following resources to convince you:

The Kingdom of Moltz
http://www.constitution.org/tax/us-ic/schiff/moltz.pdf

How an Economy Grows and Why it Doesnt, by Irwin Schiff
http://www.scribd.com/doc/8009736/Irwin-Schiff-How-an-Economy-Grows-and-Why-It-Doesnt

For a New Liberty, by Murray Rothbard:
http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936#

Thomas Woods, 'Where do rights come from?'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-Lb8YitPs8

Economics in one lesson by Henry Hazlit:
http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232

What Has Government Done to Our Money? by Murray N. Rothbard
http://mises.org/money.asp

The Ethics of Liberty, by Murray N. Rothbard
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp

And finally,

The Fallacy Detective
http://www.fallacydetective.com/products/item/the-fallacy-detective/

because faulty reasoning is behind most of the ideas that prop up economic illiteracy and the belief in government created 'rights'.

After having consumed these works, it will be impossible for anyone to think that... well, anything fallacious to do with Economics or rights. The question is, do you have the stomach to throw away bad ideas that have been ingrained into you, possibly for decades, that are the core of your personal philosophy?

This ruling not only screws the little guy, it supports federal authority trampling state law, and seems to me to directly contradict the Seventh Amendment (IANAL). My mind boggles that the justices who wrote it are considered "conservative". The word has lost its meaning.

Essential reading:

http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus10.htm

The liberties of a people are in danger from a large standing army, not only because the rulers may employ them for the purposes of supporting themselves in any usurpations of power, which they may see proper to exercise, but there is great hazard, that an army will subvert the forms of the government, under whose authority, they are raised, and establish one, according to the pleasure of their leader.

I bet you also didn't know that the Founders(tm) were a completely happy with compulsory purchase programs. George Washington himself, signed the Militia Act of 1792, which required "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years" had to purchase gun (which was tax deductible).

So which state militia will I be serving in that requires me to purchase health insurance?

It's not unreasonable to want the government to stick to the actual limited purpose of this power, instead of finding clever ways to exceed the Constitutional mandate to go beyond the scope of what the Founders intended. If they really want to do that, there is a Constitutional amendment process that would make it legitimate and that's the part I think you fail to appreciate. Intrusive questions like those about your income and lifestyle have absolutely nothing to do with the requirement that the House and electoral votes are properly apportioned.

I certainly hope that you also take a stern view on the Air Force. It's unconstitutional! I see an Army. I see a Navy. I don't see an Air Force.

It's a real shame all the Founder(tm) were dead when the 4th census asked occupation. Oh wait, they weren't. Since when are anonymous metrics needed to determine the most effective allocation of resources "abusive"?

I bet you also didn't know that the Founders(tm) were a completely happy with compulsory purchase programs. George Washington himself, signed the Militia Act of 1792, which required "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years" had to purchase gun (which was tax deductible).

It was actually Madison who wrote this, although I can't find a definitive on-line source. It's worth reading the full essay. It's always surprising to me the depth of understanding the founders seemed to have in certain areas. A depth which seems completely lacking in most of today's politicians.

I think you should consult Federalist 41 on the meaning of "general welfare": http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa41.htm

Assange has done more for Democracy, as in the right of people to direct the actions of their government, than the entire Western world has done since WWII. That's why the United States government is so pissed off: it despises the right of people to know what their government is up to with their tax dollars. It didn't want Pakistanis to know of their government's complicity in the drone strikes. It didn't want to admit that the puppet government in Afghanistan was riddled with corruption, even though the State Department has been aware of this fact since the beginning. Just like it didn't want it getting out that we have been systematically destroying democratic institutions, from Iran to Vietnam to Argentina to Palestine, because reality might upset some of it's electorate.

Sure, Assange is kind of a douchebag. You don't think Patrick Henry was? Churchill? However, the marketing ploy of providing this narrative and stringing along the releases has kept this in the news far longer than the previous leaks. It's unfortunate that the mass media, which is owned by corporations, has no self-interest in the truth anymore. But the last hole that can be exploited is the desire to keep their ratings up, and he has done well to exploit this weakness in the system.

If COINTEL PRO had been leaked in the same dramatic fashion, perhaps more people would remember it. The fourth estate is broken. It's going to take soap opera narratives with entertainment value targeted at the masses in order to fix it, which is a hell of a lot better than another war.

The stage is now set to hopefully expose Bank of America or some other major institution for fraud and corruption. Personally, Assange is the only douchebag I would trust with that information. Everyone else in the media are compromised. They are fools, cowards, and intellectual prostitutes.

... The government doesn't give us rights. We have the rights inherently. Just because the government says driving on roads that I payed for isn't a right, doesn't mean their position is legally sound. Their unreasonable search and seizure of persons and property at airports is outright illegal under the Constitution. There are no ifs, ands or buts about it. The reason it continues is that nobody in power will prosecute them, and courts won't hear criminal cases brought by the general public.

That was not always true, however, according to this history of policing in America (from the section PRIVATE PROSECUTORS).

Criminal actions were only a step away from civil actions — the only material difference being that criminal claims ostensibly involved an interest of the public at large as well as the victim.16 Private prosecutors acted under authority of the people and in the name of the state — but for their own vindication.17 The very term "prosecutor" meant criminal plaintiff and implied a private person.18 A government prosecutor was referred to as an attorney general and was a rare phenomenon in criminal cases at the time of the nation's founding.19 When a private individual prosecuted an action in the name of the state, the attorney general was required to allow the prosecutor to use his name — even if the attorney general himself did not approve of the action.20

. From a libertarian perspective desired regulation would be something like transparency in banking and finance.

The canonical example would be enforcement of contracts.

The general minarchist libertarian position is that government has some legitimate purposes, such as national defense (which does not mean keeping our troops stationed in foreign countries for decades on end), criminal justice (which does not include prosecuting anyone for "crimes" that have no victim, like smoking marijuana), and civil courts to administer tort law and resolve other disputes.

Personally, I'd say that Frederic Bastiat covered it very well in his book, The Law. In this book, he makes the case that all legitimate government power is a delegation of rights of the people, and that there is nothing that is wrong for an individual to do, that becomes right when a group (or government) does it.

-jcr

That was interesting, but I think the map of how the US would divide is a bit messed up. Colorado will go with Californica, and there is no way that South Carolina is going to join the Northeast. (Heck, I even have my doubts about Virginia!)

FWIW, the more I hear about flying, the less I want to do it. I can fit all my toys into or onto my car, and if it's farther away than a two-day drive, I can probably get along without going there. Maybe I'll eventually move to Europe, just for variety.

How does this experiment hold up against the Militia Act of 1792 whereby Congress mandated that every able body male between eighteen and forty five years of age purchase their own musket? Mind you, they weren't provided a musket, but were mandated to buy one.

Well, I'm not aware of this ever facing SCOTUS review, are you?

Further, the law seems to only apply to actual members of the militia:

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

Further, the law may not have provided you with a musket, but it does appear to allow you to claim it on your taxes:

...and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes

If I'm reading that right, you might not even have to pay for it at all, if it were a debt, but I digress...

So the law said that 'if you were drafted, you had to come prepared to fight'.

This is really the same thing as saying 'if you are alive you must buy exactly this kind of insurance'? HCR mandates a LOT more than just 'a musket' and applies to everyone, not just those males who were drafted. These are apples and crab apples.

But that being said, I doubt this law would have been found in keeping with the Commerce Clause, either. Particularly not once the nation had a standing military of the scope and power that we now possess.

I know of an example where Veterans had to save an election by force of arms.

The Battle of Athens: http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm

You got that one wrong, you meant to write Republicans (homophobic, racist, anti-middle class...).

As opposed to Democrats, who keep people in what is basically slavery, lie about trying to "improve education" while doing their best to make sure it is never improved for their voting base, tax the fuck out of people to pay for deadbeats (my city is now 13bn in the hole thanks to demofucks on the city council and the mayor's office not doing shit to get the Katrina Debris out: those lazy assholes are STILL demanding government payouts and housing/welfare checks with no plan to ever go home) and endorse the evisceration of the First Amendment, Second Amendment, and anything else in that pesky "Constitution" thingy that gets in their way?

Who voted against the repeal of DADT? Republicans

Also most of the joint chiefs of staff... who are not republicans.

Who voted against a more comprehensive anti hate crime law?

I believe the word you really mean is "thoughtcrime law", which many of us of a libertarian bent view as a Bad Thing.

Who sleeps with the religious right bowing to its will? Republicans.

Funny. Ever seen black preachers in action, poverty-pimping the slaves back to the Democrat for another round of uninformed, uneducated, "voting"?

Who voted against tax breaks for small businesses 2 weeks ago? Republicans.

What else was in the bill? Oh yeah, another round of TARP-crap that would have been WORTHLESS to small businesses. But you're too busy being a partisan fucktard to notice.

Who voted against tax breaks for corporations who keep jobs in the U.S. less than a week ago? Republicans.

See above...

Who created a $13 TRILLION hole in the government finances? BUSH thank you very much, he's a republicans.

Who voted for every bit of that spending legislation? Oh yeah, the DEMOCRATS... including Obama, every time since 2004...

As for the last 30 years, actually I beat you, let's do 60 years, under Democrats the income of the middle class has steadily increased by 3%/year and that of the upper class by 2%/year, under Republicans the increase has been around 1% for both.

Do you mean under a Democrat president or Democrat congress? Because the two are fundamentally different due to the lack of a line-item veto. The strongest growth was actually 1994-2000, when it was Clinton in the President's chair (holding the Republicans in check when he wasn't too busy getting blowjobs from interns) but the Republicans at least being sort-of fiscally responsible in the spending bills which Clinton only got a veto/pass vote on.

If we had a line item veto, I'd say fuck it, just make sure that no party gets hold of House, Senate, and Presidency all at once. As it stands, I'm more comfortable with a Republican congress and a Democrat president to hold them in check, thanks.

The problem is NOT one side or the other. The problem is Americans are too fucking stupid and uneducated these days to recognize that in order for our system to work, we have to have some goddamn checks and balances. The system, as stated, is not to rely on the goodness of men, but rather, ambition must be made to counteract ambition.

If there's a Democrat in the oval office, I vote Republican for congress. If there's a Republican in the oval office, I vote Democrat for office. Every time we've had one party controlling it all - Carter, Clinton's first two years, Bush's first six (and fuck it, his last two as well, since he was a wimpy-ass lame-duck RINO retard who didn't veto even ONE THING that Pelosi and Reid sent his way in 2006-2008), America suffered for it.

That's the reality. Now grow up and get your partisan head out of your partisan ass.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What about Croatian constitution?

III.2.22: Man's freedom and personality shall be inviolable.
No one shall be deprived of liberty, nor may his liberty be restricted, except when so specified by law, which shall be decided by a court.

III.2.38: Freedom of thought and expression of thought shall be guaranteed. Freedom of expression shall specifically include freedom of the press and other media of communication, freedom of speech and public expression, and free establishment of all institutions of public communication.
Censorship shall be forbidden. Journalists shall have the right to freedom of reporting and access to information.
The right to correction shall be guaranteed to anyone whose constitutionally determined rights have been violated by public communication.
III.2.40: Freedom of conscience and religion and free public profession of

You should read up on the background of that phrase and the profound influence that John Locke's writings* had upon the Founding Fathers.

* Link: The Second Treatise of Civil Government, CHAP. V. "Of Property.," 1690.

No, the reason why you have elected representatives is because the people who have originally created your political system were mostly of the wealthy landowner class, and didn't want to share power with rabble.

That's one way of looking at history. But at best, you'd be trivially correct.
Read Federalist Papers #10 and grok every reference to the word "majority"

Try this for some other reading suggestions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

A (Democratic) Republic was founded to protect us from 51% rule.

Which is why Jefferson immediately ran-out to a printer and had the original document (including the line about ending slavery) published by the printers. He didn't like the Congress-approved version - he preferred his original. You can find it here:

http://www.constitution.org/tj/doi_rough.htm

Oh, yes, a leader should aim to be loved as well as feared, but it is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. As long as he avoids hatred.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State - this means that in order for a country to exist it needs an army to defend itself, yes?

I'm afraid not. A militia and an army were very different notions in 18th-century Britain and the colonies. A militia was composed of the mass of the adult male population which received semiprofessional training once or twice a year. They were rarely "well-regulated," which meant well-organized or well-trained in the arts of war. An army was a professional force of soldiers, paid, maintained, and trained by the state.

See the 1789 debate on the Second Amendment where there were clear distinctions made between standing armies paid and directed by the state and militias composed of the mass of the people. http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm

If you read the other writings of the founders from that time period, you will understand that the point of the 2nd amendment is to ensure that the people retain at least some ability to defend themselves from the militia of the oppressive government.

In the hundred years of debate from the 1680s to 1800 about the necessity of a standing army in peacetime, it was the army that was the agent of government tyranny, not the militia.

You're right than the Second Amendment needs to be read in context, but the claim that a standing army was or was thought of as a well-regulated militia doesn't fit that context.

There is a clear distinction between a militia and a standing army in late-17th through late-18th political discussion both in Britain and in its colonies. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of pamphlets from this hundred-year span which debate the wisdom of the creation and maintenance of a standing army in times of peace. This debate was almost uniformly cast as choice between (1) reliance upon a militia for peacetime security and (2) peacetime maintenance of a standing army alongside the militia. To claim that a standing army was referred to or thought of as any sort of militia, and, in particular, that the phrase "a well regulated militia" refers to a standing army, is inconsistent with this longstanding tradition of 18th-century political debate.

See, for example, the discussion at http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm, which makes clear that contemporaries involved in the debate on the Second Amendment distinguished sharply between a militia and a standing army. To quote the Virginia Convention: "That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit..."

The problem is, there's a misprint in the wording. It's not bear arms, it's bare arms. Everyone has the right to bare arms.

Also, it's vague because the way it is written, it seems you can have arms because you are part of the militia since the militia was to supplement any standing army.

Little known fact: people still had to register ownership of their weapons so the government knew who they could call on to muster the militia. The NRA will never admit to it because that would do away with their efforts to not have people register today.

For reference: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504383_162-5258192-504383.html

And for the link to the Militia Act of 1792 which required white men (only men) to be notified upon their 18th birthday that they are automatically enrolled in the militia: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

After all, if you're going to call forth the militia, it's a good idea to have some way of knowing who actually owns a weapon, don't ya think?

And what James Madison thought as shown in Federalist10:

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

What James Madison recognized is that factions and differences of opinion exist and therefore must by remedied by a well structured Republic, I am glad we have elections and I am glad half the people I meet cannot vote on every issue.

Also see http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm (as just a good read not directly as reference)

The "founding fathers" as Americans call them knew that we were always going to have loud mouths, but that is a sacrifice that we deem necessary in the pursuit of liberty.

Do illegal immigrants count as "all other persons" for representational purposes?

No, only because the "all other persons" clause was entirely superseded by the 14th amendment. Whether illegal immigrants count for apportionment purposes, I don't know...maybe someone with an appropriate legal background could weigh in...but it is my understanding the personhood is constitutionally distinct from citizenship. See here for the best explanation I could find.

While I appreciate the corrupting influence of corporate and other special-interest money on politics, how do you do that (strict public funding) and also not infringe on 1st amendment rights?

I'm not necessarily talking about corporations' free speech, just real people. I'm also not talking about giving to politicians, but rather spending your own money in favor of who or whatever you want to support.

Let's say you were talking to a Iranian, Belarussian, Ossetian, or some such, describing the US of A. "We have free speech in our country; we can freely support our candidates of choice."

Iranian: "OK, can you talk to your friends and tell them to vote for candidate X?"

You: "Yes."

Iranian: "Can you pass out flyers in favor of your candidate?"

You: "As long as it doesn't involve spending money."

Iranian: "??? How do you make flyer without spending money? What a country!"

>>>Under what guise could anyone come under the impression that this isn't FCC Jurisdiction?

Well for one thing I read the Supreme Law of the land, which you apparently did not. It is quite clear that the FCC only has authority AMONG the states, not inside the states. The Law also says that communications/commerce regulation inside the state is reserved to the State government.

Read and Learn the law: http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txt especially your Bill of Rights number 9 and 10.

>That snippet from Stallman is disturbing. It's almost like he's completely forgotten why Free Software is actually appealing to people.

It's not disturbing when you consider the fact that RMS's philosophy is the basis of the progress that the free software community has been able to make so far, and that progress is why normal users are attracted to Linux (a system that works well).

A parallel to this is the freedoms and philosophy behind the US Constitution. Those freedoms and structures formed the basis of the progress in Silicon Valley and other places which allowed for the current state of art in computing.

But if a consumer were to say he wants the advanced computers that a free-enterprise system allowed to develop without the free-enterprise system, he would be committing the same fallacy as someone who wants Linux, GNOME, and the entire constellation of free software without the free software philosophy.

The corporations use bribes to buy politicians. The politicians write the laws the corporations wants. And the laws the corporations want are protective laws which discourage independent businesses (programmers or otherwise). It doesn't matter whether we're talling about RIAA, Hollywood, Comcast, or Microsoft. It's all the same operating procedure. Corporations should have their free speech rights taken away (lobbyists/bribes). They have no more rights than a Tree or a rock. They are not THINGS not people.

Limited liability meant that you did not have to go to the king or pope or landed aristocrat for funding. The royal "We" who could not be sued or the man so rich and powerful that no mere commercial failure could ever break him.

Such men had free speech.

They were the government - and they could be bribed.

The modern business corporation represents the interests and efforts of a great many people. In union there is strength - and voice.

Microsoft employs 40,000 people in the Puget Sound region.

It owns or leases 15 million square feet of office space - and it helped drive the median family income in Redmond to $97,000 a year - and the median value of a single family residence in Redmond to $496,000.

This is what the lobbyist takes to a politician - and it is more effective than any bribe. [FWIW the number of Congressmen tried for bribery since 1905 is no more than 12 or so. List of Public Corruption Cases

The FSF is also a corporation. It lobbies - it campaigns.

With an adolescent ineptness, to be sure. Think "Windows 7 Sins"

Without free speech rights, it would be even more confined and helpless.

I do wonder, did previous generations struggle with the same feelings and opinions of the next?

From Rousseau's Origin of Inequality :

Discontented with your present state, for reasons which threaten your unfortunate descendants with still greater discontent, you will perhaps wish it were in your power to go back; and this feeling should be a panegyric on your first ancestors, a criticism of your contemporaries, and a terror to the unfortunates who will come after you.

ANYWHERE.

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

You can pretty much say it's legal to resist an unlawful arrest to the point of using lethal force to do so if it is truly an unlawful arrest.

You'll be free of criminal charges - that won't stop the impending unlawful death civil suit filed by the family, so don't think you'd easily get off that scot-free.

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/defunlaw.htm

I can see you've never read The Prince, you just heard the keyword "mercenary" and clicked into slashbot mode. Sigh. It's not me that says this about the condottieri, it's pretty much every book reviewer everywhere from the 16th century on. Please, for the love of all that is holy, read the God-damned book and get an education. Thanks.

We sent off some DNA in our family last winter, and I was surprised at the lack of legalese in the paperwork.

In particular, nowhere in any of it did it state that we were surrendering any property rights [i.e. the documents addressed neither the physical property of the biological material, nor the intellectual property of the DNA code].

On the other hand, because of the lack of legalese in the paperwork, it also didn't say that the DNA facilities were surrendering any property rights [or the ability to assert property rights in the future], either.

But I'd be shocked if the courts ruled for the creditors rather than for the "patients", unless there was some very explicit contracts in which the "patients" surrendered their property rights [although, even there, I wouldn't be surprised if a court ruled that such a contract were invalid, on e.g. 13th Amendment grounds].

And here is a link to the anti-federalist papers.

Washington? Perhaps not. However, his successor, John Adams, signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law. James Madison, author of several of the federalist papers. attacked this new law as a unconstitutional infringement of free speech and the press.

Here's how the Massachusetts Legislature attacked James Madison's Virginia Resolution

This construction of the Constitution, and of the existing law of the land, as well as the act complained of, the legislature of Massachusetts most deliberately and firmly believe, results from a just and full view of the several parts of that Constitution; and they consider that act to be wise and necessary, as an audacious and unprincipled spirit of falsehood and abuse had been too long unremittingly exerted for the purpose of perverting public opinion, and threatened to undermine and destroy the whole fabric of the government.

Responses to the Virginia Resolution

I think that qualifies as a genteel way of declaring that at least one of the writers of the federalist papers is a "lying asshat".

Washington? Perhaps not. However, his successor, John Adams, signed the Alien and Sedition Acts into law. James Madison, author of several of the federalist papers. attacked this new law as a unconstitutional infringement of free speech and the press.

Here's how the Massachusetts Legislature attacked James Madison's Virginia Resolution

This construction of the Constitution, and of the existing law of the land, as well as the act complained of, the legislature of Massachusetts most deliberately and firmly believe, results from a just and full view of the several parts of that Constitution; and they consider that act to be wise and necessary, as an audacious and unprincipled spirit of falsehood and abuse had been too long unremittingly exerted for the purpose of perverting public opinion, and threatened to undermine and destroy the whole fabric of the government.

Responses to the Virginia Resolution

I think that qualifies as a genteel way of declaring that at least one of the writers of the federalist papers is a "lying asshat".

You really think that the best way for the government to collect funds is by taking your money before you even get to see it? You think that it is fair (and constitutional) for the Federal Government to dig into all of the deepest areas of your personal life to make sure you are compliant?

Whether or not it is fair, there is no question about it being constitutional. Article I, Section 8, clearly states:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

This section establishes that Congress can (through law) impose taxes and some other forms of complusory ways to gather income. The section doesn't exclude any type of tax, therefore they only way income tax could be seen as uncostitutional would be if it ran counter some other part of the constitution. So unless you want to agrue that income taxes somehow violate your civil rights I don't think you can question their constitutionality. Oh and you don't have to take my word for it, here is a link or two to the text of Constitution of the United States of America.

Personally though, I'd rather tax current wealth (in the form of net worth) rather than income. Thus there wouldn't be an disincentive to earn, just a disinsentive for horading wealth and property. Before you dismiss my idea, consider this quote from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations about government and property:

Civil Government, so far as it is instituted for the security of Property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those wh have some property against those who have none at all.

in the federalist papers:

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

They thought about it, but free speech trumped the elimination of political parties. Always floors me how much foresight they had.

Apparently in the 1960s he was less-corrupt, as displayed in his Gold and Economic Freedom, a strong argument for backing paper money with gold and having nothing like the corrupt Federal Reserve we have today. But ultimately we should not care who an argument comes from, merely that it stands up on its own merit.

http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm

U.S Constituion Article 1
Section. 10. No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

If you look in your wallet at the dollar bills in there you will see plainly printed at the top of each of them "Federal Reserve Note". This is because they are a debt of the federal reserve, redeemable for $1. They are not "money" as defined in the constitution. It's not very well known, but control of the issuance of money was one of the most controversial issues of the 19th century in American politics. The coins this guys was using were circulated as "money" in the 19th century by the federal government at the face value of the coins. It's just that the money has been so debased over the years that the government says they are no longer money but collectibles, even though there isn't really any law stating that.

"The Republic is really the form of National Government that has stood the test of time, of which the United States is NOT."

So, again, can you provide real examples or is it just wishful thinking?

"Of course, the EU and US are as different as any country is from another."
Much more than that. USA is a country; EU is not.

What makes something a country? What I said was that the United States is not a National Government, it is a Federal Government. If you think that is just a matter of semantics, then that is your opinion, and that gives a pretty clear vision of either your ideology or your education, but please recognize that your idea of a state as a mere formality of national affairs is fundamentally different from that of the Founders intentions as well as the law as it is still written today. And not to praise them as some kind of perfect all knowing beings, but you might be keen on familiarizing yourself with some of the things that they SAID and that they DISCUSSED about each issue and item addressed in the constitution. There are records of discussions and letters that outline what, at least, at the time that they wrote it. No, the constitution is vague in some places, but you can get transcripts from the discussion arguing over how and why it should be phrased in a certain way to give the best possible clarity. They may not have all agreed on exactly what it did mean, but it is easy to see what they all agreed it was NOT. I would highly recommend reading The Jefferson Letters, The Federalist Papers, and John Taylor's New Views of the Constitution. To put it simply, One of the powers of the federal government expressly granted by the states in the constitution is to make treaties and declare treaties. This can all be done without having to get the permission of the state first. On the otherhand, in the EU, the EU has common defense, but does not have the power to declare war or make treaties. The Federal Government can can make loans against the United States in the form of Treasury Notes, and could print money if it so desired (which it does not. The last United States Notes were taken out of circulation in 1971). The European Union was founded in 1993, where as the Federal Government we "have today" was founded in 1788. Give the EU 200 years, and I am sure that will get wildly out of control and you will hear France threatening to succeed from the Union like Texas is today. The American Civil War didn't begin until 1861 where for the first time it was challenged whether or not a state had the right to succeed.So what? That is just totally settled? Come on, at very least you need to acknowledge the existential argument there.

As for the Enlightenment Age, I am talking about the Enlightenment itself, not saying it was the greatest time in all history, just that we need to remember what it was and why it worked. Of course I am happy as anyone that we eradicated small pox, but I would argue that were it not for enlightenment thinking, something like a small pox vaccination certainly wasn't going to be devised in the dark ages. You really going to say that the poor lower class were better off in the dark ages? Maybe if you were a puritan, but those kids just gtfo anyhow. (Yes, I realize they came to what is now the United States and had a big influence on law, but I'd really prefer to forget that. I KNOW!)