Slashdot Mirror

Can someone tell me where I can sign-up for the upcoming Civil War?

Certainly, here you go... Free the Bear

Or.... Southern Independence Party Of Texas Platform

Or, from A whole BIG list of Separatist movements

Alaskan Independence Party -- Seeks referendum with choice of statehood, independence, commonwealth, or self-governing territory.

Alaskans for Independence

Free the Bear - California Secession and Independence

California Secessionist Party

The Republic of Cascadia -- Advocates independence for the Pacific Northwest from both America and Canada, with a libertarian and pro-business perspective.

Cascadian National Party -- Advocate secession of the present states of Washington and Oregon from the United States.

Cascadia Confederacy -- Advocates independence of the Pacific Northwest region from the U.S. and Canada, with an anti-nationalist and anti-capitalist perspective.

State of Jefferson -- The rich history surrounding the events leading to the State of Jefferson secession movement of 1941. The State of Jefferson lives on in the hearts and minds of many residents of northern California and southern Oregon today.

Hawai`i -- Independent & Sovereign -- Separatist movement of Hawaiian aboriginal people.

La Voz de Aztlan -- Separatist movement that seeks a reconquista (reconquest) by chicanos (ethnic hispanics of Aztec descent) of the Southwestern United States and creation of a new nation of Aztlan (legendary ancient homeland).

New England Confederation Movement -- Seek independence for New England states. Also see New Hampshire Chapter.

South Carolina League of the South -- Seek independence through secession, perhaps for all of the Southern states of the 1861-65 Confederate States of America.

Republic of Texas -- This is one of several pages for the somewhat fractured Texas Independence Movement which has recently received a great deal of attention. We do not support the movement. Constitutional compliance throughout the United States is attainable. Independence is not necessary, and distracts from the cause of constitutional compliance. But they do raise a number of interesting issues.

Provisional Government of the Republic of Texas -- Another Republic of Texas site.

United People's Party (Partido Nacional La Raza Unida) -- Many of them seek to separate the part of the U.S. taken from Mexico from the U.S. and make it an independent Hispanic nation called Aztlan.

Read some of the chapters from the book Votescam to find out more about what goes on behind the scenes in an election. Debating e-voting is the tip of the iceberg. http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm

Hey, thanks -- now I don't have to tell him that, since you did it for me.

From your answer, I'm guessing that you're a Libertarian. That being the (presumed) case, I have a question:

There's one part of this particular argument that I don't get: how do Libertarians regulate the commons*? Is it just that they would eliminate the commons entirely and make everything privately owned? If so, I don't really understand how they can regulate things like air pollution, since the problem doesn't stay on the producer's property. Besides that, it seems to me that there are some things that are inherently public, such as infrastructure. How would Libertarians keep that from being abused?

*In order to answer, you ought to be familiar with The Tragedy of the Commons so as to understand what I'm talking about.

perhaps because he was lucky enough to preside over a great economic boom that ended just as he was leaving office.

*sigh*

Clinton was not, by any means, "lucky" to have presided over that boom, and I'll tell you why.

Clinton came in during a mild recession. One thing he did early in his term in office was get congress to promise to balance the budget. In order to get Democrats to agree to this (traditionally Republicans were the ones wanting balanced budgets) he raised taxes for the upper class in the same bill. Republicans, of course, insisted that this was a horrible move and would greatly damage the economy according to supply-side economic theory (aka Reagonomics, tricle-down economics, voodoo economics).

Now, here's some basic economics for you: Deficit spending and taxation are pretty much the same thing. When you deficit spend, you add money to the economy, which devalues the money that's already there. The effect is that you are transferring wealth from the citizens to the government, just as you would through taxation.

As Alan Greenspan put it, "Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth." [1].

However, deficit spending hurts the economy far more than taxation. Pretend you are a wealthy individual looking to invest money. Say you narrowed it down to two options: You could lend money to someone with a great idea for a new business, or you could purchase property. Now, if inflation is likely to hit hard in the next few years, what would you do? Well, if you lend money to that guy, that money is going to be worth a lot less in a few years when he pays it back. But if you buy property, that property is only going to go up in value. So, you buy property.

Well, guess what? The economy booms when people are lending. Buying property does nothing for the economy.

Indeed, Clinton's elimination of the deficit led interest rates to drop to historic lows. In fact, simply the promise that the deficit would be eliminated caused people to start investing like crazy, which caused the economic boom, which itself helped eliminate the deficit. Circular logic? Reganomics seemed pretty circular, too, but Clintonomics actually worked.

And look what Bush has done. He gave us a massive tax cut, and is paying for it through deficit spending. He claims that his tax cuts will help the economy, but deficit spending hurts far more than tax cuts help. I'll grant you that the recession itself was not Bush's fault; the economy moves in cycles no matter what the government does. But Bush's policies are only making it worse.

Fiscal responsibility isn't just a happy thought. It's essential for a healthy economy.

The Prince

Yesterday, today, and forever.

...it is at least slightly encouraging to hear that he owns a TiVo.

It would be praiseworthy for a prince to keep faith, and to live with integrity and without guile. Nevertheless experience shows that princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account, and have known how to circumvent the intellect of men by craft, and in the end have overcome those who have relied on their word... a wise lord cannot keep faith when such may be turned against him... A prince will always find reasons to excuse his non-observance.
But it is necessary to know how to disguise this characteristic, and men are so simple, that he who seeks to deceive will always find someone willing to be deceived.
--Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince XVIII: OF THE WAY IN WHICH PRINCES SHOULD KEEP FAITH

I happened to mention that I think that all religions are equal, atleast at a higher level (as in if you ignore the minor details like forms of worship, etc) and that I think that they were created with a common goal of imposing "morality" and the "good" way of life back when law and order were difficult to maintain.

Anyway, the point which I had wanted to make is that there are a *surprisingly* large number of people who refuse to believe that the best service to their religion that they can probably do is to increase tolerance towards other religions rather than denounce them and try to proselytize the masses under the guise of "saving them".

Yes, they are fools. Between this and the other mistakes they are making, I have serious questions about their ability to run a business legally. I wonder when they're going to come out and say something like "Ooops, you mean revenue and proft are different?"

And regarding your sig:

------ What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" do you not understand ----

The part I do not understand is the part you conveniently left out.

From constitution.org:
In a report on the legal basis for firearms controls, a committee of the American Bar Association observed:

There is probably less agreement, more misinformation, and less understanding of the right of citizens to keep and bear arms than on any other current controversial constitutional issue. The crux of the controversy is the construction of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which reads: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Few would disagree that the crux of this controversy is the construction of the Second Amendment, but, as those writing on the subject have demonstrated, that single sentence is capable of an extraordinary number of interpretations. The main source of confusion has been the meaning and purpose of the initial clause. Was it a qualifying or an amplifying clause? That is, was the right to arms guaranteed only to members of "a well-regulated militia" or was the militia merely the most pressing reason for maintenance of an armed community? The meaning of "militia" itself is by no means clear. It has been argued that only a small, highly trained citizen army was intended, and, alternatively, that all able-bodied men constituted the militia. Finally, emphasis on the militia has been proffered as evidence that the right to arms was only a "collective right" to defend the state, not an individual right to defend oneself. Our pressing need to understand the Second Amendment has served to define areas of disagreement but has brought us no closer to a consensus on its original meaning.

Mind you, I am an onwer of 'arms', but I still agree that there is a stark lack of clarity on the meaning here.

Uh, truth and knowledge are the underpinnings of a Democracy. They are dangerous to a dictatorship. This alone is the primary reason for the 1st Amendment, and the reason that it is the First.

I know it looks as though I missed the irony and sarcasm in your comment. But shit like this makes me so angry. I think it's high time that the US population brush up on their Rousseau.

A good place to start is here.

Uh, truth and knowledge are the underpinnings of a Democracy. They are dangerous to a dictatorship. This alone is the primary reason for the 1st Amendment, and the reason that it is the First.

I know it looks as though I missed the irony and sarcasm in your comment. But shit like this makes me so angry. I think it's high time that the US population brush up on their Rousseau.

A good place to start is here.

Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with.

What you do find in Idaho is a general mistrust of the Federal Government and Attorney Generals. Remember Ruby Ridge.

It was a weak case from the start. Ashcroft was doing a witch hunt. With the case they were presenting anyone who sets up up a website with a forum with a single posting inciting violence could get terrorism charges. And the postings referenced in the indictment that Ashcroft quoted read like book reports. For example "The World's Bravest People" about the Chechen mujahideen warriors, "The True Meaning of Shaheed" about how matrydom is an ultimate honor, "The Objectives and Aims of Jihad", and "The Religious and Moral Doctrine of Jihad".

It was if someone posted a document on the honor and bravery of Samurais and the webmaster being thown in jail.

Here is the indictment.

As a former UI student who worked in the same lab as Sami, I am glad to see that our court systems do work and that he can return to his family. Let's hope that all accused get a day in court instead of indefinite prison terms and assassinations.

"The grand jury at the federal level has had a troubled history. Required by the Constitution as a check on judicial and prosecutorial abuse, it has often been used as a tool of abuse against political dissidents. Most grand juries are mere "rubber stamps" for prosecutors, but others become "runaway" grand juries, taking the lead in investigations of official corruption and abuse."

"And unlike a search warrant situation, where the agent has to obtain permission and authority from a judge to seize records or property after demonstrating probable cause to believe an offense has been committed, in the case of a grand jury subpoena the discretion of the prosecutor is virtually unfettered."

MOTION TO DISMISS INDICTMENT, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY OF GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS, DUE TO ABUSE OF GRAND JURY PROCESS

However, if Linux Today presents itself as a linux-oriented news source (which it seems to do), then it would be absolutely inappropriate to censor based on politically incorrect content.

Why would I want to read news from a source that only tells me what the majority of readers would like to hear? I think I'd prefer to hear everything and decide for myself what's crap and what's good.

At work I use Windows XP. At home I use I use slackware-current. My wife uses Windows 2000, and dreams of owning a Mac. Though it seems some people would have you believe differently, I tell you that you don't have to join the cult to use the GNU operating system.

Two Points:

Concerning Slavery:

[W]hich shall be determined by adding the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.

Concerning what the Gov't has the right to regulate:

* 18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

And as to the intent of the founders, the debates that took place during the Constitutional Convention may be a good guide as well:
The Debates

I thought you might be interested.

Two Points:

Concerning Slavery:

[W]hich shall be determined by adding the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.

Concerning what the Gov't has the right to regulate:

* 18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

And as to the intent of the founders, the debates that took place during the Constitutional Convention may be a good guide as well:
The Debates

I thought you might be interested.

Two Points:

Concerning Slavery:

[W]hich shall be determined by adding the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other persons.

Concerning what the Gov't has the right to regulate:

* 18. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

And as to the intent of the founders, the debates that took place during the Constitutional Convention may be a good guide as well:
The Debates

I thought you might be interested.

You want a gun? Join a well-regulated militia.

Since you brought it up. At the time that the Constitution and Bill of Rigths were written, any male that so desired could be part of the militia. During times that a militia was required, all of the male citizens were asked if they would like to join the militia. They brought there own weapons for use in combat. This militia did not get together to train and they were not part of militia during times of peace. The militia was quite simply a group of volunteers brought together in a time of crisis. Because of this the second amendment, as worded, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." clearly shows that being part of a militia is not a prerequisite to owning a firearm, but that individuals owning firearms is necessary for the security of the US and therefore a prerequisite for having a militia.

Here is a little background - source link 1982 Report of the Subcommittee of the Consitution

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)

"The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)

And a particuallry eerie quote that seems applicable to this discussion, emphasis mine.

"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)

Weird, I always thought the first amendment was more "powerful" than the second one...

Then apparently you haven't put much thought into it.

When someone attempts to subvert your other rights like, for example, your right to vote. What makes you think that these same people won't try to subvert your right to free speech?

It's your right to keep and bear arms that protects those other rights. Some people say "That'll never happen in America. Well, the truth is that it has.

The Battle Of Athens is a great example of how corruption in the goverment can be stopped by an armed populace.

LK

You just read The Prince, by Machiavelli, don't you?

It sounds funny, but at least #4 couldn't be closer to the truth. At least in my country.

Since when does a computer oriented group have anything to do with politics...I think he is letting his personal opinions hinder his Linux User Group leadership role.

I wonder if anyone reads the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers like the one regarding elections of the president for reasons why things are done the way they are.

I think the Iraqi Governing Council, the UN, and the EU could benefit some from reading these types of documents to understand the thinking behind the electoriate, etc.

Since when does a computer oriented group have anything to do with politics...I think he is letting his personal opinions hinder his Linux User Group leadership role.

I wonder if anyone reads the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers like the one regarding elections of the president for reasons why things are done the way they are.

I think the Iraqi Governing Council, the UN, and the EU could benefit some from reading these types of documents to understand the thinking behind the electoriate, etc.

Since when does a computer oriented group have anything to do with politics...I think he is letting his personal opinions hinder his Linux User Group leadership role.

I wonder if anyone reads the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers like the one regarding elections of the president for reasons why things are done the way they are.

I think the Iraqi Governing Council, the UN, and the EU could benefit some from reading these types of documents to understand the thinking behind the electoriate, etc.

> is it "libel" if a computer produces results based on mere data?

Libel has a very specific legal meaning.

"Published material meeting three conditions: The material is defamatory either on its face or indirectly; The defamatory statement is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons; and, The material must be distributed to someone other than the offended party; i.e. published; distinguished from slander.

Criminal Law: A malicious defamation expressed either in printing or writing or by signs or pictures, tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead, with intent to provoke the living; or the reputation of one who is alive, and to expose him to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule. ... It has been defined perhaps with more precision to be a censorious or ridiculous writing, picture or sign made with a malicious or mischievous intent ...

... There is perhaps no branch of the law which is so difficult to reduce to exact, principles, or to compress within a small compass, as the requisites of a libel. ... In order to constitute a libel, it is not necessary that anything criminal should be imputed to the party injured; it is enough if the writer has exhibited him in a ludicrous point of view; has pointed him out as an object of ridicule or disgust; has, in short, done that which has a natural tendency to excite him to revenge.

... The publication must be malicious; evidence of the malice may be either express or implied. Express proof is not necessary: for where a man publishes a writing which on the face of it is libelous, the law presumes he does so from that malicious intention which constitutes the offence, and it is unnecessary, on the part of the prosecution, to prove any circumstance from which malice may be inferred. But no allegation, however false and malicious, contained in answers to interrogatories, in affidavits duly made, or any other proceedings, in courts of justice, or petitions to the legislature, are indictable."

-- Bouviers Law Dictionary, a whole bunch of court references omitted.

Online versions of the dictionary can be found all over, such as here and here.

Also, it is a form of defamation, defined as:

"To determine whether a statement implies a factual assertion, courts examine the totality of the circumstances in which it was made. First, they look at the statement in its broad context, which includes the general tenor of the entire work, the subject of the statements, the setting, and the format of the work. Next they turn to the specific context and content of the statements, analyzing the extent of figurative or hyperbolic language used and the reasonable expectations of the audience in that particular situation. Finally, they inquire whether the statement itself is sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false.

The First Amendment requires that the courts allow latitude for interpretation." -- same source, and references removed again

There are a bunch of points that all the companies have in their favor:

• Legal documents are immune. The documents that Google is referencing are legal documents.
• Statement must be false. The statements are excerpts of another document. Goople's statement isn't that the guy had those problems. Google is claiming that the documents it points to contains that text [which in fact, it does].
• Malice must exist. Google could easy deflect it based on the malice requirements, as their automated quoting system can be easily shown to have no malice.
• The enitre statement must be 'sufficiently factual' to be evaluated as fact. the excerpts would obviously fail this test, both because they are suc

Now that's more like it.

However, given that the 9th has been widely excoriated as an outrageously liberal court for a ruling which is solidly in line both with common sense and First Amendment jurisprudence, I am forced to come to the conclusion that the 9th circuit is moderate and the rest of the United States judicial system is conservative.

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

Here, read it for yourself: Constitution for the United States of America.

There are just so many ways to look at this (specifically where Bill Gates is concerned), that this could keep constitutional lawyers happy for years.

He's in a position of profit and trust, but is it Under the States? Is geographic location, making that much money, and having your software so deeply enshrined in so many State governments enough to make that connection? Note: Office does not specifically say POLITICAL office...

Oh yeah, HUGE can of worms.

Citizen's arrest powers only apply to violent acts, and usually only to felonies. Sorry, but you can't slap handcuffs on the guy in the next cube because he has a few MP3's.

[constitution.org]

It may sound unlikely, it may even BE unlikely... but fundamentally the 2nd Amendment is all about making sure that the ultimate power lies in the hands of "the people" where it belongs.

And it works. So well that some people now believe that a conversion to a tyranny is so unlikely that they argue for the elimination of guns as an unnecessary hazard - completely oblivious to WHY it is unlikely.

But it will only remain unlikely as long as a large part of the population is armed. The US has had a number of near-misses with tyranny even in recent times. Some examples:

In the period just before WWII, when the NAZIs were coming to power in Germany, the KKK actually HELD power (especially in law enforcement) in many of the towns, counties, and states of the US. Their ideology was similar. But in the US people were able to resist with firearms. (My wife is here because, in separate incidents, her grandfather and mother held off the Klan in battle.) So while the NAZIs were able to suppress opposition and rise to power in Germany, the Klan in the US was held at bay, and finally defeated, in thousands of tiny battles.)

Nixon, president during the peak of the '60s anti-war movement (with a terrorist faction that makes Alkaida look tame), actually hired a think-tank to examine what would happen if he suspended the presidential election. Answer: That would precipitate the population to oust him by armed might and restore the election - and this would succeed, mainly because over half the population was armed and partly because some of the military would side with them.

The Battle of Athens is another county-level example.

(Of course not all near-misses were averted by an aroused, armed population, or the threat of one. For instance, there was the "Butler Plot" in 1933, when the heads of several of the US' largest corporations plotted a coup to replace Roosevelt with a fascist regime under general Butler. Butler was appalled, went to a congressional committee (the predecessor of HUAC) about it, and the plot was suppressed. Imagine if they'd found a more sympathetic general...)

And I could go on.

It's been trendy for the exec types to read The Art of War as of late. If you want to fight sleeze with sleeze, The Prince will give you a few ideas next time around.

You might find this article interesting.

I think you're missing the point. The parent is trying to show why this logic is faulty by comparing Clinton to Bush with it. Clearly this isn't a valid comparison because the two held office at different times and we can't assume that the intentions and motivations of terrorist threats were the same under Clinton as under Bush.

By the same token, it's not September of 2001 anymore, and it's not logical to assume that someone is going to try to fly a jet into a building this week and chalk the absence of that occurance up to Bush's policy.

As for your 2nd statement.

1.) Americans had a set of n rights on Sept 10, 2001
2.) The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. bill was passed after Sept 11, 2001
3.) The P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act removes limitations on the power of the government.
4.) The liberties of the people and the power of their government to infrige upon those liberties is a zero sum game. (Locke, Rousseau)
5.) The people therefore have fewer rights than they did on Sept 10, 2001.

For the longest time, the world has used American to mean "citizens of the United States of America". You are NOT an American.
Have you ever travelled outside the USA? This statement is false.

The UN is NOT a democracy

No, the UN is a system to resolve conflict, to forge solutions to common problems etc. Your DEMOCRATIC REPRESENTATIVES participate in this body on your behalf. The UN could use reform, but it is -- by far -- the best the world has ever created at Governing The Planet.

As far as I'm concerned, our founding fathers hit a massive home run with the Constitution.

Please review these works to understand the foundation of the US Constitution. The US constitution is just one of many documents, American 'founding fathers' borrowed liberally from the phiolophy from a great meany cultures... America wasnt/isnt the only Free Land in the world, and wasnt born in a vacuume. Hell, the French practically fought the War of Independance for you -- and most USAians havnt a clue.

the USA is pretty much the only country in the world that HASN'T needed to change their form of government?

Which I would describe as a weekness. Stagnation is death. Change and adaptation is the wellspring of life. The admininstration of a Morbund government does not a Democracy make.

while they did make mistakes (slavery comes to mind, although that was only a compromise!)

Please read this book: A People's History of The United States by Howard Zinn If you wont read this book, at least come to understand what it contains, and how perspective will reward you.

This court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the constitution over a treaty. This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null.

Those who would give their essential liberty for the purchase of temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.

While we're on the subject, let's just delve a little into Franklin's inspiration. Ben and all the Founding Fathers read John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government. As Locke makes clear in the beginning of Chapter 8, the very purpose of civil society is to exchange some natural liberty for the safety and comfort of a community. But don't take my word for it; here is Locke's (you should read some chap 1 to see what he means by 'state of nature'):

Sec. 95. MEN being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent. The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any, that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left as they were in the liberty of the state of nature. When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.

Confession: I've already moderated in the topic, so I've got to post this anonymously. I didn't notice the misquote until after a few mods. Having posted I won't mod any more in this topic.

Those who would give their essential liberty for the purchase of temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.

While we're on the subject, let's just delve a little into Franklin's inspiration. Ben and all the Founding Fathers read John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government. As Locke makes clear in the beginning of Chapter 8, the very purpose of civil society is to exchange some natural liberty for the safety and comfort of a community. But don't take my word for it; here is Locke's (you should read some chap 1 to see what he means by 'state of nature'):

Sec. 95. MEN being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent. The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any, that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left as they were in the liberty of the state of nature. When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.

Confession: I've already moderated in the topic, so I've got to post this anonymously. I didn't notice the misquote until after a few mods. Having posted I won't mod any more in this topic.

Jury nullification is only relevant in criminal, not civil, cases.

Here is some more information on jury nullification, its roots, and why there's controversy over it. (PDF version, for those who prefer PDF.)

Why not billions and billions of good things? How about Trillions? The Government should only do one thing well, you know, like good Unix design philosophy. This was known in the 19th century: Bastiat pans Socialism

Wrong, Here in the US, rights are God given. Read from "the Declaration of Independence"

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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government,

A: Sweden doesn't have the plurality of races, creeds, SES, regional interests, etc. that the USA does.

B: The USA has Single-Member-Districts to populate its representative bodies in almost every jurisdiction at almost every level of government. It mathematically over-represents the majority, and at times entrenches a minority against a majority. The effect is that a "simple majority" vote de jure is more like a two-thirds majority requirement de facto.

C: What people don't get is that the US system is DESIGNED to hand every close political contest over to the status-quo. Once in a while, or in places where the system is odd, there are upsets, but it is the exception and not the rule.

D: To win against an encumbent in the USA, you need to achieve an overwhelming level of support almost under the radar, to prevent the status-quo from calling in favors from political connections to tip the scales. They only need to get things back to a close race in order to achieve the upper hand.

E: If you are an American "underdog" (BTW: I have that in a T68i ringtone if anyone wants it), you should work harder outside (I don't mean against) the system, until you have sufficient momentum to outmaneuver your encumbent. Then you must maneuver your advantages against your opponents' political weaknesses.

F: Go read The Prince , and then get yourself into a quiet place with the dead-tree version of Discourses .

G: "You seek followers? Seek ZEROES!!!"
-- F. Nietzsche [the emphasis is mine, and I have another one about translations if you like to nitpick]
Truly: votes are for losers. Real political power comes from the consensus--civil agreement-- that voting only pretends to express. Vote-getting is for losers. Winners know what will happen with or without the polls. Connect with and coalesce the the support of real people and the rest will come as a natural consequence.

H: Beware the ides....

In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.

The proposal finally passed the House in its present form: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In this form it was submitted into the Senate, which passed it the following day. The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the right be an individual one, for private purposes, by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing "For the common defense".

You're trying to depict the FBI as an organization of jackbooted Gestapo thugs, and that's unfair.

Thats purely disingenuous. The poster describes a scenario where the FBI is unknowingly acting on bad information, and you cry Godwin.

Perhaps your expiriences with The Agency are limited to your dad's company picnics, but they can be pretty farkin scary if they're going after someone they think is a bad guy.

As for the examples you asked for, I decided to expand beyond computer error and include other abuses of FBI authority as well:

WW2 internment

Black Panther Murders

Rescources at GWU's CNSS

Michael Riconosciuto who is serving time for dealing heroin after testifying against the government in Iran Contra.

and so on,

and so on,

and so...

There is probably less agreement, more misinformation, and less understanding of the right of citizens to keep and bear arms than on any other current controversial constitutional issue. The crux of the controversy is the construction of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which reads: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

because it it directly refers to regulation.

It refers to "well regulated". It's not a phrase used now, but at the time of writing it meant effective, properly disciplined, ordered.

Do you think the US would do the same thing today

Danny Casolaro

Michael Riconsciouto

Ron van Meter

The list goes on.

The Constitution does not give the fedgov power to declare any essentially private behavior "illegal," and all "laws" contrary to the Constitution are null and void. The DMCA is unconstitutional on its face - it openly contradicts the 1st Amendment. Hence, it is null and void, and, therefore, circumventing copyright protection in and of itself is NOT illegal.

The criminals masquerading as a "government" in our screwed-up society may consider it illegal, and you may have to pretend to respect their opinion for the time being, since they might put you in jail or kill you if you don't. But that doesn't make it right.

Also, if you are circumventing copy protection in order to defraud another person or company, this is certainly wrong, and possibly illegal as well - not because of the DMCA, but because of the natural rights of the person or entity you are defrauding, and because there are valid laws at the state level (and in other nations) to address this behavior.

But please do not make the mistake of thinking that something is "illegal" just because the fedgov says so. 99.9% of the time, it isn't.

See www.constitution.org.

This is complete and utter nonsense:

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.

Lessig is advocating the theft of private property, pure and simple. If we lived in an era in which jurists weren't a pack of marxist thieves, he'd be disbarred for signing his name to these remarks.

The difficulty is that those who voted for Nader gave Bush the 2000 election, by splitting the anti-Bush vote. If Nader had not run, it is likely that the majority of Nader voters would have voted for Gore, rather than Bush, handing Gore the election. Note that this is not the fault of those who voted for Nader, who, as ubikkibu notes, thought they were doing The Right Thing(tm) by voting for the candidate they preferred. Rather, the fault is due to the plurality voting system, in which to get a result most in accordance with his desires a voter is sometimes best served by voting for someone other than the candidate he prefers--in this case, "whatever half-assed corporate whore the Democrats put up," instead of Nader. In 2000, a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush, which was likely not the intent of the voter (again, as ubikkibu notes). (And it works both ways--in 1992 Perot probably took enough votes from Bush I for Clinton to win.)

Other voting systems exist that are much more fair to the wishes of the electorate; one that receives high marks in this regard is the Condorcet system, in which the voter states his preferences pairwise among the listed candidates. The drawback of this method is its complexity, which may be a problem in a country in which the "butterfly ballot" is beyond the capabilities of the voter.