Slashdot Mirror

Strictly speaking, this single problem constitutes a refutation of the purist libertarian position; purist positions are like mathematical hypotheses, in that a single counterexample demolishes them. The purist must address this issue even if the evidence is (in my opinion, foolishly) interpreted to mean there is no serious greenhouse problem, and fails to support the position by finding a demonstration that there is no greenhouse problem.

The purist must demonstrate that even if there were such a global environmental issue, individuals optimizing for their own best interests would find a way to resolve it. No serious libertarian argument can proceed without considering the tragedy of the commons.

I can think of numerous other ways in which the purist libertarian argument falls flat. Money, for instance, cannot exist without extensive and complex regulation, and money is core to the libertarian view. And what good are cars without public roads, and houses without public water and sewage? All these require some sort of "mutual coercion mutually agreed upon".

Where to draw the line between the collective and the private interest is a problem that is not going away. Pure anarchist libertarianism is as doomed to failure as pure communism. Competition without regulation is at least as incapable of producing a thriving, complex economy as regulation without competition. Calling this "injustice" begs the question yet again.

The domains where libertarian prinicples suffice for social organization are quite obviously limited. Finding the appropriate limits shows no signs of being an easy problem. Trying to pretend that these alone are sufficient to design a society simply ignores some very basic evidence.

Perhaps if you stopped congratulating yourself for your naive good intentions for a moment, some sense might sink in to your immature brain.

Indeed.

This would seem reasonable, except for the fact that the US was only granted limited power to punish crimes: only crimes defined in the Constitution that affect the nation itself. "The drafters of the Constitution clearly intended the states to bear responsibility for public safety and what Alexander Hamilton called 'the ordinary administration of criminal and civil justice.'"

The US was designed as a forum for businesses to deal with each other across the nation in a uniform manner (money, laws, etc...), not for the administration of criminal justice. The vast majority of US jurisdiction is civil. And, in civil court, a person can only be sued for monetary "damages" inflicted on another. By building inkjet cartridges in one's basement, no damage is caused. Therefore, even if building inkjet cartridges in one's basement for personal use were technically "illegal", no one would have standing in court to bring action. By selling inkjet cartridges, however, damages in the form of the profit that would have gone to the patent holder are incurred.

Remember also that patent (and copyright) law is a compromise brokered by the state between content creators and inventors and society as a whole. In exchange for exclusive "rights" (really powers, since it is basically the 'right' to infringe upon others' rights) to profit from one's discoveries for a period of time, society gets access to vast troves of technical knowledge on which to build and improve. If everyone were prevented from building and verifying and improving upon inventions during the time in which the patent holder has "exclusive rights" to them, innovation would grind to a halt. By preventing people from profitting from others' inventions, inventors are granted a "right" that they would not otherwise have: the right to be free from competition for a period of time once one's invention is put into the public sphere.

The case you mentioned, that of manufacturing and selling infringing products within a state, is specifically placed under Federal Civil Jurisdiction by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. By selling the cartridges, you cause damages to the Patent holder and violate his "exclusive right to (profit from his) discoveries". This has nothing to do with interstate commerce. If it didn't involve patents (or copyrights), the US would have no jurisdiction because it is "intrastate" commerce. If there were no damages, no one would have jurisdiction because no one would have standing in court because no one would have a claim against you.

What would you do if there literally was a CongressCritter Verizon however!?

That can't happen for at least the next few years. Verizon Communications is the married name of Bell Atlantic, daughter of AT&T, born in 1984. Under the U.S. Constitution, Article I, House members must be at least 25 years of age (section 2), and Senate members must be at least 30 (section 3).

Or perhaps you need something more geek-oriented?

It seems to me that Paine is correct after all. Any government, no matter how well set up, is a double-edged sword. Unfortunately, his dream for American democracy is dead. In it's place is the old adage, Might Makes Right. Money, it seems, is not without its drawbacks. We as a nation are still dealing with the affects of the Industrial Revolution: an era which marked the rise of the corporation, and a proportional decline of U.S. democracy.

Our legislature is bribed into passing laws that are not only unconstitutional, but also demonstrate an unconscionable degree of avarice. Our Courts, charged with the review of the law to determine its constitutionality, have declined to remove this blight from our lawbooks. Jefferson was understandably worried about creating a political machine which has so little room for direct democratic participation.

And what are we left with? A legislature more interested in furthering the interests of the multinational corporation then the general Public? An executive branch that has asserted autocratic powers (For Further Reading)? Law enforcement that has a careless disregard for the law? And a supreme court which is derelict in its duty? Something must be done to restore the American way, and put power back where it belongs: in the hands of the people. Paine would say that it is inevitable-- violations of the 'natural law' concerning government do not go uncorrected. As computer techs, we should understand this. When something is broken, you fix it. What we need is a debugger!

I wish to note however, that you do not use a sledgehammer on a PC that doesn't work, nor do you perform any unnecessary drive reformats. In this manner, I do not advocate a use of physical force to solve our current dilemma. (There ECHELON, you can rest easy now.)

It is with no small irony that I choose to quote from an author whose works are in the public domain. Copyright does not mean, "eternal money," nor does it mean, "absolute power." Unfortunately, there are some people that construe it as such.

First, every time we buy a blank CD, DVD, VHS, or even audio cassette tape we are helping them out. There is a tax which we, in the US, pay every time we purchase any of the above. We also pay it every time we buy a radio, TV, or even a computer. So - we lose.

Every time we rent a CD, DVD, VHS, or even game cartridge - we are (again) paying this tax. So we lose there also.

Should we buy a book, a script, magazine, newspaper, or the like we are probably still paying this tax. So we've lost again.

Finally, even if everyone in the US refused to have anything else to do with the RIAA or MPAA they are still powerful enough to have new laws passed. As in "Atlas Shrugged," by Ayn Rand, if they can not take our money legally - then the thing to do is to change the laws so they can take it legally. After all - laws are nothing more than rules by which we play and those who have the money usually get to make the rules.

Sorry if this shocks anyone but the truth is that it is only because we respected each other, had a unified common sense approach to things, a scrupulous populus, and the knowledge that if you did wrong you would be held accountable for it - that we have made it this far. The "Anything goes" way of looking at things, not holding people's feet to the fire for doing something wrong, and (as bad as it might seem) not being willing to put to death those who really are doing terrible things to others (like Enron's execs who have ruined hundreds if not thousands of people's lives) that has caused us to come to this. What these people are doing is, IMHO, treasonous. Look it up. The act of "Treason" is where two or more groups (whether they be people, organizations, corporations, or whatever) attempt to remove the rights of their fellow citizens. According to the texts it is their "intentions" which merit this stamp So ask yourself this - what are their intentions when they attempt to force upon you their yoke of slavery? What are their "intentions" when they try to sneak, like theives, laws into Congress which remove our rights and preserve or expand upon their rights. What are their intentions? Those intentions are to take away your rights.

Now, someone will probably say "You don't go around killing people just because they are trying to get laws passed." That's true. You don't. Normally. But this is different. It is different because they are not trying to get laws passed for the betterment of mankind or to right an injustice. No. They are trying to twist the laws and our country (Heck! The world even!) to their needs. To enslave it. To enshackle it to their beliefs. Just like some religious cults have tried to enslave others to their will. It is an evil thing to do and it will have terrible consequences if it is allowed to endure.

Even if they were only brought up on charges it would shake up the corporate world enough that many things companies are beginning to attempt to do through the rewriting of our laws would be stopped. Companies would think twice about trying to change laws so they benefit only them and remove our rights. Which brings up - why do groups think they can get away with this? The answer is - they have in the past. The difference is the internet. Whereas before there was this huge time lag between when something happened and when we knew about it - now it only takes hours or minutes for word to be sent and a transgression found out. The problem is still though the complancey of many of the people in our country. "Oh! I might get involved." some whine. "I don't have the time." another chats. "It's not my place." a third comments. If you don't stand up and write your congressmen/women then you are already shackled. You already bear their mark. You already curl up at their feet, lick their hands, and eat the crumbs they throw to you.

So as always the question is - what are you going to do about it? Wallow in the filth on the floor or write and demand that these groups stop trying to infringe on your god given rights!

Now I'll answer your last question; my other answers will flow from there.

Finally I would like to know what your definition of a "well ordered militia" is as opposed to a collection oof citizens. What do you think the founding fathers meant when they said "well ordered" and why do you think they put that phrase in the second amendment?

For additional information on what the founders meant, I turn to the Federalist Papers, No. 29.

[emphasis added]
What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen.
...
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice...To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
...
yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia....[I]t will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it.

First, Hamilton assumes that "militia" is a general term. That is, "well-regulated militia" is clearly a subset of "militia"--the general citizenry.

Second, at the writing of the Constitution, there was no guarantee just what the federal government would do with the militia. There was no set plan for the regulation thereof. It was up in the air.

Third, Hamilton thought it would be pointless and infeasible to train the entire militia to the point of being "well-regulated". Instead, he proposed training only a portion of the militia. Note that at present, this is roughly the case in federal law; the "organized militia" is constituted by the National Guard, and the "unorganized militia" is comprised of all other elligible citizens.

Analysis: In spite of the fact that the authors of the Bill of Rights knew full well the entire citizenry--"the people", the militia--would most likely not be trained to the point of being "well-regulated", they wrote the Second Amendment to protect the right "of the people". They could have limited the protection to those citizens the federal government trained. They did not.

Had they done so, the Second Amendment would be a puzzling document indeed. It would say to the federal government, in effect, "You cannot abridge the right of militia members to keep and bear arms, unless you first stop training them. Then it's perfectly all right. But as long as you're training them, their right is protected." That's not a limit. It's an irrationality. Further, putting such control over the militia's armament would go against the spirit of the continued comments of Hamiliton:

...if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.

So, my answer to your second paragraph is that yes, all citizens are a part of the militia whether they like it or not. Being in the militia has absolutely no responsibilites attached to it. No requirement for training, not for registration, not for being under the command of the president or any other military personell. Such militia is not probably not well-regulated, but it is still militia.

Now, I actually held back the best part of Hamilton's remarks. Here it is:

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

Now for the question of whether the Second Amendment applies blacks, Indians, and women. My answer is yes.

The right is not limited to the well-regulated militia. The stated reason for the protection is that the well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of the State, but the protection itself is of a "right of the people". Thus, the question is not whether black, Indians, and women are part of the militia, the question is whether they are part of "the people". The laws that were "passed to include blacks, indians and women in the rest of society" were intended to extend the full rights of citizenship. Indeed, this issue was part of the force behind the Dred Scott decision that helped spark the Civil War. That is, the court denied blacks the rights of citizenship, in part because:

[emphasis added]
It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction...and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

Put yourself in their shoes... they had just broken free from England by force. They firmly believed that English rule was tyranical and took up arms to break free. In this light, it is easy to see how the founding fathers would be weary of government. The second ammendment is not in the Constitution so that every yahoo redneck and crack dealer has the right to shoot tin cans. The second ammendment is a final check-and-balance when all others fail, granting the right of the people to bear arms such that should the need arise, a militia could be formed.... not to fend off the Indians or English mind you.. but the government.

Of course there isn't a "right" to overthrow the government,... they just wanted to make sure it was possible.

Of course, some will say that this is only my interpretation...but don't take my word for it! Lets do a google search and see what thye founding father had to say...

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance. - Alexander Hamilton,Federalist Paper #28

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. 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. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. - James Madison, Federalist Paper #26

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. - Abraham Lincoln

What county can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance. - Thomas Jefferson

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.- Abraham Lincoln

Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at the individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny, or private defense. - John Adams

No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government. - Thomas Jefferson

Put yourself in their shoes... they had just broken free from England by force. They firmly believed that English rule was tyranical and took up arms to break free. In this light, it is easy to see how the founding fathers would be weary of government. The second ammendment is not in the Constitution so that every yahoo redneck and crack dealer has the right to shoot tin cans. The second ammendment is a final check-and-balance when all others fail, granting the right of the people to bear arms such that should the need arise, a militia could be formed.... not to fend off the Indians or English mind you.. but the government.

Of course there isn't a "right" to overthrow the government,... they just wanted to make sure it was possible.

Of course, some will say that this is only my interpretation...but don't take my word for it! Lets do a google search and see what thye founding father had to say...

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair. The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo. The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts. Intelligence can be more speedily obtained of their preparations and movements, and the military force in the possession of the usurpers can be more rapidly directed against the part where the opposition has begun. In this situation there must be a peculiar coincidence of circumstances to insure success to the popular resistance. - Alexander Hamilton,Federalist Paper #28

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. 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. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. - James Madison, Federalist Paper #26

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. - Abraham Lincoln

What county can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that its people preserve the spirit of resistance. - Thomas Jefferson

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it.- Abraham Lincoln

Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at the individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny, or private defense. - John Adams

No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government. - Thomas Jefferson

so why should we continue SETI/space/etc... i think, quite simply, we owe it to the generations still to come. the most uncommon trait among us human-animals is to continually go beyond our habitat. so, once in a while, lets quit grazing without thinking in our selfish 'commons' ["The Tragedy of the Commons," Garrett Hardin, Science, 1968] and do our part as one of the continuum...

Habeas Corpus in the US means you shouldn't be arrested and kept jailed indefinately without being accused of doing something possibly illegal. It's based on an English law passed in 1679.

The interpretation has been left up to the Courts and Congress. There are rules in different parts of the country but usually if you can prove you are a citizen you won't be held more than 3 days under normal circumstances, or 10 days or so if there is a riot or flood or some other act of god, without being charged with a crime. The idea being that you can't defend yourself if you aren't accused of anything.

The US constitution allows the president to suspend Habeas Corpus if Congress declares war. This is a bit of a controversy in the States right now because Congress refused to declare war in the early days after Sept 11, but instead gave Bush some extraordinary powers indefinately and others that needed to be renewed in a few years. Congress purposely didn't give him a suspension of Habeas Corpus, but apparently he has been holding lots of people more than the 10 day or so maximum, more or less since Sept 11, without being charged with any crime. Most of the people arrested pleaded to some minor offense to get released, but many have either not been offered that option or refused it. It's hard to know since they aren't allowed lawyers and their names and number are unknown. Even if there had been a declaration of war it would be illegal to not allow someone to contact any governement approved lawyer.

Lets say you know someone is a criminal. for example, they are pirating mp3s. You cannot do anything about it, other than maybe tell the governement.

You could also make a citizen's arrest.

As long as those "funds" went towards finding a good constitutional lawyer first, yes. Unfortunately, an ICBM doesn't qualify as an "arm", though :)

Ruby
Ranch
Colorado

NOT

Ruby
Ridge
Idaho

Sounds alot like something John Locke would say. Read John Locke's Second treatise of a civil government and focus on chapter 5, on property. just replace property, with copyright, and there you have it. Now Locke's ideas never flew with the other founding fathers of the constitution... i wonder why.... but you do have a point there. Locke argued that if property can be passed on, that it would not give future generations a fair chance and it leads to greed and waste. and isn't that what these rediclious copyright laws do also? create greed, waste and dosnt allow for fair use. (well the modren interpertation, and when i say modern i mean all that crap going on with the DMCA and the SSSCA) It is always intresting to see alot of alot of different philosphers ideas pop up all over slashdot...

• Anyone from the UK here? You guys are saps for government intrusion. You don't even live in a democracy, but you think you do

I'll bite. I (the poster you're responding to) am a UK citizen. Now, let's see. We can be sued for contributory copyright infringement for bypassing DRM, but we didn't make it criminal offence. We don't already habitually hand over book purchase records to law enforcement. We don't have banned book lists. We have exactly the same fucked up first-past-the post electoral system as the US, but we have five parties that regularly win seats in parliament, and we don't return 90% of incumbents, nor did we choose to re-invent the idea of a near-absolute head of state appointed not by democratic process, but by a council of picked power brokers (if you know your history, the 2000 Presidential election was fascinatingly similar to the Anglo Saxon selection of a monarch by the witan, a council of aethelings and eoldermen appointed, influenced by and loyal to various factions in contention for the throne).

There never has been a country, state or city run as a democracy. Athens came close - if you were a free man of property (the premise that both US and UK systems were also based on) - but they got sick of governing themselves and executing advocates of free speech and more or less acquiesed in their own transformation to a dictatorship. The US system is heavily influenced by Athens, and even more so by Rome and it's wacky dagger-in-the-back machinations. Hurrah!

Given your .sig, I'll infer that your primary argument is that in the US, you're allowed to own guns. I'm using that wording advisedly. You are allowed to own guns. As long as you haven't been convicted of a crime, and you don't want a concealed weapon, or a fully automatic weapon, or a handgun with a clip in excess of ten rounds, or live in New York and aren't (de facto) employed in government or the legal system, or in any way want arms (not guns specifically) that could actually be used for the explicitely intended purpose, which is "A well regulated Militia". You've already lost the gun argument, they're just being taken away (from honest men and women) one shell at a time by men and women with heavily armed bodyguards, until only criminals will have guns.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not claiming that the UK is much better than the US. The UK is a nasty, mean little country, but in practical terms, i.e. in practicing what we preach - we are still a little better, although I freely concede that we get worse every day under the auspices of Mr President-Elect Tony Blair.

New Zealand knocks us both into a cocked hat, of course. But let's not go there, it's always embarrasing when you think you're on the high ground only to find someone dropping moral rocks on your swollen head.

It is called the Constitution. Please see the following article:

The Social Contract and Constitutional Republics

I assert that, since Congress has not the right to criminalize looking and remembering (in general), it therefore logically follows that it has not the right to criminalize videotaping (in general).

And in any case, Congress certainly has no power to criminalize anything that the Constitution does not explicitly authorize it to criminalize:

... the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the -- day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory.

Thomas Jefferson, in the Kentucky Resolutions, 1798

• Mutual agreement, more specifically,
• Mutual understanding of the agreement
• Mutual benefit (sometimes called "consideration")
• Mutual right to remedy upon breach
• Mutual obligation
• Competent adult parties (sui juris)
• Proper subject matter

You can't actually force someone to come back inside, anyway

Yes you can ... just arrest them

This classic problem of game theory sheds light on many of the problems that have plagued ethical and political philosophers throughout history. It addresses that class of situations in which there is a fundamental conflict between what is a rational choice for an individual member of a group and for the group as a whole. It helps us understand how such dilemmas can be resolved for the greater good.

Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

Here's a nice reference: Stevens' Sources of the Constitution (1894) A notable quote (from Chapter II: Making of the American Constitution):

"No one familiar with the common law of England," remarks Mr. Justice Miller, "can read the Constitution of the United States without observing the great desire of the Convention which framed that instrument to make it conform as far as possible with that law.... To look at the general outlines organizing the new government into its various branches, there is but little departure from that of the English government. The President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives correspond in essential features with the King, Lords, and Commons of Great Britain.

Actually, if you're really interested in the origins of the Constitution of the United States, you should read the entire Constitution Society website. Considering the amount of Constitution-worshipping that happens on Slashdot, your ignorance of the origins of the thing depresses me.

Here's a nice reference: Stevens' Sources of the Constitution (1894) A notable quote (from Chapter II: Making of the American Constitution):

"No one familiar with the common law of England," remarks Mr. Justice Miller, "can read the Constitution of the United States without observing the great desire of the Convention which framed that instrument to make it conform as far as possible with that law.... To look at the general outlines organizing the new government into its various branches, there is but little departure from that of the English government. The President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives correspond in essential features with the King, Lords, and Commons of Great Britain.

Actually, if you're really interested in the origins of the Constitution of the United States, you should read the entire Constitution Society website. Considering the amount of Constitution-worshipping that happens on Slashdot, your ignorance of the origins of the thing depresses me.

I've been wrestling with the article's issue, on a game-theoretic level, for years. For example, many people simply do not understand what I say when I discuss the events and aftermath of
What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)

It's far deeper than ego or "personal", which are superficial reactions I get. In game-theory, the Prisoner's Dilemma teaches us that that individuals have an incentive to defect in terms of cooperative resources. Now, having said that, what then? What follows? How does one go about organizing a cooperative venture with this knowledge in mind?

To quote the article:

When penalties were allowed, the common good prevailed, and the investment by each group member climbed. "But if there's no opportunity for punishment, cooperation unravels," says Fehr, with investment declining rapidly.

This is the exact argument I made passionately regarding the necessity of making there be some penalty for Michael Sims' actions in destroying censorware.org. It's the flip side of enlightened self-interest. Cooperation cannot be supported if someone can defect without penalty. But:

In some games, players could then fine each other, but they had to pay a small sum for this.

But what if it's nigh-impossible to have a penalty? This is an aspect where I think about "the power of journalism". As a programmer who has worked with journalists (many times unhappily), I'm acutely aware that as a general rule, journalists can harm me with manipulated coverage, much more than I can punish them via semi-futile protests about their actions. This is in fact my number-one publicity worry about anti-censorware work and how I'd ever get covered nowadays in Slashdot if I ever were to be sued like Dmitry Sklyarov.

So in the end, I don't have a solution. But the implications of this problem are NOT abstract, in fact are very immediate.

You mean the one that murdered the men, women and children at Waco and Ruby Ridge? Or the one that shot down twa flight 800 and covered it up? Or maybe the one that still arrests people for marijuana possesion in states that have decriminalized/legalized it for medical use? Umm, maybe you mean the one that invented the "incident" in the Gulf of Tonkin to drag us into the vietnam war? Or the one that let the FBI infiltrate protest groups in the '60s, subverting their rights to free speach? Wait, you mean the government that setup this phony war in Afghanistan, so we can build an oil pipline?

You talk about the loss of rights under the constitution. You must not have read the PATRIOT act, which schreds what little there was left of the bill of rights. With its passage you lose the right to trial by jury, the right to be free from illegal searches and seisures, the right to confront your accusor in court, and the right to criticize the government.

Heres an idea for you, turn off MSNBC/CNN/Fox News and look at some news sources that aren't run by and for the government propaganda machine.

Personally, I hope to be ready when the rest of America wakes up and decides its time to throw off the chains we've put ourselves in.

Here's the way I see it: Companies often have a hard time catching shoplifters, because, 1) they acn't (legally) restrain a person before they've left the store. (I can put a book into my pocket and still go to the checkoput and pay for it; it's not shoplifting until you've left the store.) and 2) Once you leave the building, store security can not restarin you. They can only ask you to stay. (Howver, a shoplifter is allowed to legally walk away, as only police officers are allowed to restrain them.), and 3) the store can't prosecute them unless the have evidence (video cameras will work, but the employees' words can be easily beaten in court.)

That's incorrect. In most places you can restrain and report to the police anyone you see who commits a crime. This is what a "citizen's arrest" is. A few state laws are mentioned here including DC, Tenn, Mass, Kentucky, Utah. California is mentioned here. Of course its tricky business and you can get yourself in legal trouble if you harm the person or falsely accuse them. A short guide on that is here. I remember a show where this guy comes into a cafeteria with a baseball bat. So the staff takes the bat and beats the guy for about 10 minutes. Now they restrained a lawbreaker, but they got sued theirselves. So that kind of restraint is not legal, but it is legal to have a system that automatically locks the doors so the person can't leave. By the way, I am not a lawyer so don't go out being batman without consulting a lawyer first.

Damm. I hate it when I click submit instead of preview. Perhaps the buttons should be layed out differently. Read it here

Read it

This isn't the first time that CCTV and surveillance generally has been discussed on /. and it won't be the last.

The natural (knee-jerk?) reaction to this kind of story seems to be negative: I don't want someone, especially the government, watching me, etc, etc.

But all of those comparisons to 1984 and Enemy of the State are just so over the top. Big Brother definitely isn't watching you, and Jon Voight isn't either.

CCTVs in public places aren't placed there to infringe on the constitutional rights of you or anyone else. They can't do that because the Constitution doesn't protect your right to be invisible in a public place.

If your a known criminal or are engaging in criminal activity then a CCTV camera on the street corner isn't exactly welcome. But if your Joe Average it's no better or no worse than someone standing there taking in the view.

Watching everyone all of the time takes a lot of resources. The former East German government tried it back in the days of the Cold War. Eventually, it toppled under the strain that such a machine placed upon itself and, in turn, so did the Berlin Wall.

Paranoia is a healthy thing. In small doses.

I was going to moderate, but we've had too damn much of that lately, and this is an interesting post. :)

I also am very leery of such surveillance, and I think that there is at least one fundamental difference between having (a) one or more sharp-eyed employees and (b) a video monitoring system: data collection and retrieval.

It's not like having one sharp-eyed employee at all, really. It's like having thousands of sharp-eyed employees, all over the world, all with instantaneous access to each other's memories and perceptions. E.g. a network of computers.

The U.S. is now Database Nation - thousands of personal details of each of us are stored in databases over which we have zero control. This is likely to continue unchecked for a very long time. The end result is that when face-recognition technology starts to work well you're trackable. Everywhere you go, every step, is stored in a database somewhere, and available to the highest bidder.

For anyone who just thought, "paranoid," riddle me this, Batman: what would someone 100 or even 50 years ago have thought about our current state of affairs, in which nearly every purchase we make is trackable, and such information is regularly bought and sold? A paranoid fantasy?

question: is control controlled by its need to control?
answer: yes

Yes. Debt can be bought, sold and transferred.

• seems to be fundamental to our American Economic system
• is one of the basic mechanisms of slavery

The canonical treatise on the concentration of corporate power in the media is Ben Bagdikian's excellent The Media Monopoly.

We need real alternatives to the corporate gerber, and one real alternative is Public Access Television. For those that don't know what this is, it is a system whereby the cable provider allocates channel space, and provides studios, equipment and training to *anyone* to create their own TV shows. A fairly complete list of these facilities is here: http://www.openchannel.se/cat/. Educate yourself about Public Access, petition your local city government to require it (if you don't have it), and MAKE YOUR OWN TV SHOW! (It's real fun!)

Keep in mind that for these corporate media companies to operate, they generally must obtain the grant of a franchise from your city government. These franchise agreements have a term limit (like 10 years), and ensures a bit of local control w/r/t taxation (franshise fee), and that the franchise operate in the public interest.

Now remember that in the USA, government is created by the people, and the government charters or franchises these media companies. A creates B and B creates C... Get it? The people ultimately sanction the corporations, and thus, they must operate in the public interest.

So, while you're petitioning your city government to provide Public Access Television, be sure to remind them that it is their duty as public servants to make sure these monopoly franchisees operate in the public interest, like the Terms of Use "Agreement" , where YOU the user must usually "consent" to monitoring, such that you won't engage in any sorts of illegal speech (whatever the hell that is), that you won't run servers, etc. This stuff is NOT PROPER SUBJECT MATTER for a common carrier to require in contracts with customers, especially when they are the only game in town (monopoly) AND that they are supposed to be operating in the public interest, as they were created by the government which "derives it's just powers from the consent of the governed", to quote TJ.

Oh wait, there is. It's called The Constitution. pity no one in the legislature is aware of it, seemingly...
---

It is interesting to note the tradition anonymity has in American Politics. Tracts like Paine's Common Sense were originally published anonymously. And after the revolution, highly influential papers like those in the Anti-Federalist Papers were penned under names like "Centinel" and "Federal Farmer".

Anonymity can serve as a check on the power of government (not to mention the wraith of the masses). There is a compromise, of course. If one can speak anonymously, one is safe to publish lies and slander. And it's rapidly coming to mean that you can publish hard-core kiddy porn and nuclear weapon schematics too.

Oh, well. Nobody said freedom was perfect. The alternative is to place your trust in your government, and hope no utterance you make ever comes to be regarded as seditious.

Me? Well, I guess it's enough to note that my real name isn't "Skald" :-)

It is interesting to note the tradition anonymity has in American Politics. Tracts like Paine's Common Sense were originally published anonymously. And after the revolution, highly influential papers like those in the Anti-Federalist Papers were penned under names like "Centinel" and "Federal Farmer".

Anonymity can serve as a check on the power of government (not to mention the wraith of the masses). There is a compromise, of course. If one can speak anonymously, one is safe to publish lies and slander. And it's rapidly coming to mean that you can publish hard-core kiddy porn and nuclear weapon schematics too.

Oh, well. Nobody said freedom was perfect. The alternative is to place your trust in your government, and hope no utterance you make ever comes to be regarded as seditious.

Me? Well, I guess it's enough to note that my real name isn't "Skald" :-)

Here's an excerpt:

In the 1988 Republican primary in New Hampshire, there was no panel of computer experts who worked for the people and thoroughly examined the source codes before and after the voting. It is likely that a notoriously riggable collection of "Shouptronic" computers "preordained" voting results to give George Bush his "Hail Mary" victory in New Hampshire.

That is the fun part! There is a part of the constitution that says that the federal government can't do this. The tenth amendment specifically prohibits the federal government from exercising any powers not delegated to it by the constitution. Federal laws such as the wetlands protection, gun control, federal highways, and the DMCA are all extraordinarily broad readings of the powers of congress.

The United States of America was incredibly well engineered. The problem lies with the slow erosion of the constitution due to "emergency measures" and "temporary tax" situations. The federal government has grown to big for its britches. Somebody needs to beat the federal government with a cluestick. If I remember correctly, the federal tariff on long distance phone calls is supposed to be paying for the Spanish-American war.

So vote Libertarian. I know they are wacky, take things a little too far, but what the hell. If enough people show some interest in a party that wants to do "extreme" things like force the government to run according the charter that we the people granted it, the viable parties will start to take notice. Maybe the media will start taking interest in (small-l) libertarian topics. I can dream.

That is the fun part! There is a part of the constitution that says that the federal government can't do this. The tenth amendment specifically prohibits the federal government from exercising any powers not delegated to it by the constitution. Federal laws such as the wetlands protection, gun control, federal highways, and the DMCA are all extraordinarily broad readings of the powers of congress.

The United States of America was incredibly well engineered. The problem lies with the slow erosion of the constitution due to "emergency measures" and "temporary tax" situations. The federal government has grown to big for its britches. Somebody needs to beat the federal government with a cluestick. If I remember correctly, the federal tariff on long distance phone calls is supposed to be paying for the Spanish-American war.

So vote Libertarian. I know they are wacky, take things a little too far, but what the hell. If enough people show some interest in a party that wants to do "extreme" things like force the government to run according the charter that we the people granted it, the viable parties will start to take notice. Maybe the media will start taking interest in (small-l) libertarian topics. I can dream.

well although I don't share your sentiments of leaving the US I do agree that it is time for our country to return to the principles it was founded on, the Constitution.

I've never seen an explaination for why if Eric Corely thinks what he is doing is ethical, why he hides behind a false name that sounds suspiciously real.

If you are talking about the United States:

Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

As mentioned, no NRA. The right to bear arms such as it is in the US has no equivalent in the Australian constitution (a formal document) nor the constitutions of the states of Australia (usually not formal documents).

Is it?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~

Well regulated, in the context of a militia, meant drilled, trained and proficient. Think of a well regulated watch. Here are some usage examples from the OED.

No name; no one to blame. This is how the Bill of Rights intended.

There will be no mandatory Internet user tracking. The reason is each thing you do with an Internet client is a REQUEST for information. Working this proposal would require practical violation of the First Amendment on two grounds, and possibly the Third Amendment on a third ground.

<rant>Bill Clinton should be ashamed that his middle name is Jefferson, and he will be recorded in history of attempting to sell out the rights American Citizen for short term political gain.</rant>

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.

Requiring people to use a specific protocol which identifies them, abridges their right to make requests for information with impunity. It would also abridge (have a chilling effect) on an individual's likelihood of using such a request to establish an unpopular idea on a public bulletin board. It would also require agents of those services to enforce the protocol on the individual users, which constitutes abridging the freedom of the press.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

IMnsHO, while the world considers the term cyber-warfare we should be prepared to establish the constitutional interperetation of quartering of cyber-soldiers in our homes. President Clinton's statement is preparatory for yet another key-escrow proposal. We need to get the idea out that escrowed keys are agents of the government, and are essentially cyber-soldiers which the President, and (thus far) potential Presidential Candidates Gore and McCain would like to install in our cyber-homes.

No name; no one to blame. This is how the Bill of Rights intended.

There will be no mandatory Internet user tracking. The reason is each thing you do with an Internet client is a REQUEST for information. Working this proposal would require practical violation of the First Amendment on two grounds, and possibly the Third Amendment on a third ground.

<rant>Bill Clinton should be ashamed that his middle name is Jefferson, and he will be recorded in history of attempting to sell out the rights American Citizen for short term political gain.</rant>

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.

Requiring people to use a specific protocol which identifies them, abridges their right to make requests for information with impunity. It would also abridge (have a chilling effect) on an individual's likelihood of using such a request to establish an unpopular idea on a public bulletin board. It would also require agents of those services to enforce the protocol on the individual users, which constitutes abridging the freedom of the press.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

IMnsHO, while the world considers the term cyber-warfare we should be prepared to establish the constitutional interperetation of quartering of cyber-soldiers in our homes. President Clinton's statement is preparatory for yet another key-escrow proposal. We need to get the idea out that escrowed keys are agents of the government, and are essentially cyber-soldiers which the President, and (thus far) potential Presidential Candidates Gore and McCain would like to install in our cyber-homes.

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary , and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Thomas Jefferson also thinks that the Federal government has no power to make the buying and selling of medicine a crime:

[From the website of the Constitution Society:] Jefferson: Federal Criminal Powers Limited

Jefferson: Federal Criminal Powers Limited

Copyright © 1994 Jon Roland. Permission is granted to publish with attribution.

Thomas Jefferson, in the Kentucky Resolutions , 1798:

... the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes whatsoever; and it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," therefore the act of Congress, passed on the 14th day of July, 1798, and intituled "An Act in addition to the act intituled An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States," as also the act passed by them on the -- day of June, 1798, intituled "An Act to punish frauds committed on the bank of the United States," (and all their other acts which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other than those so enumerated in the Constitution,) are altogether void, and of no force; and that the power to create, define, and punish such other crimes is reserved, and, of right, appertains solely and exclusively to the respective States, each within its own territory.

This is the classic Jefferson quote in which he succinctly states the constitutional limits on the powers of the central government to prosecute persons under criminal law for acts committed on state territory. He does not get into the "general legislative powers" of Congress over federal territories, which have been reasonably interpreted to allow broad criminal jurisdiction, but the Constitution clearly states that such jurisdiction extends only to territory not the territory of any state. One might also argue that the constitutional provision that empowers the federal government to guarantee to the States a republican form of government confers powers of criminal prosecution in the event that the federal government had to step in temporarily to govern a state in which government had failed to maintain a republican form, in which case it would be governing the state as a kind of federal territory for the duration of the emergency. The only other exception is a power to discipline military personnel for acts they might commit, including those on state territory. However, this power would not extend to nonmilitary government officials, who would be subject only to federal civil remedies or removal from office, or criminal prosecution under state law.

Federal "territory" does not include property owned in fee simple by the federal government that lies within state territory, nor property on which activities are otherwise subject to regulation as interstate commerce or for excise or import taxation, neither of which create "federal territory" unless the land has been ceded to the federal government by the state legislature, nor do the powers to regulate or tax provide authority for criminal penalties (disablement of life or liberty), only for civil penalties (disablement of property).

Apply this standard to most of the statutes passed during the last 60 years or to the federal agencies and regulations established during that period, and it is clear why constitutionalists see a conspiracy to incrementally overthrow the Constitution. The constitutional guarantees of civil rights won't protect us if the restrictions on governmental powers are not strictly enforced. Those who imagine they can support only the provisions they like and ignore violations of others are deluding themselves.

Citizens have failed to do their duty to independently determine the constitutionality and legality of official acts. They have been all too willing to delegate that duty to courts, superiors, or legal advisors. The Principle of Nuremberg is that the duty to make such a determination cannot be delegated. The U.S. Constitution was meant to be understood and enforced by every citizen, according to the intent of the Framers, and not according to the passions of the moment. We have seen what happens in other countries, like the old Soviet Union, when an otherwise good constitution is not enforced by every citizen. This is especially important when courts become corrupt, and interpret the Constitution in ways that serves not the people but their would-be masters.

Constitution Society Home Page

So, it's ok if government representatives kill those unimportant people.

Unimportant people:

• Vicky and Sammy Weaver, former residents of Ruby Ridge
• David Koresh and many of his followers in Waco
• Allison Krause, Jeffrey Miller, Sandra Scheuer, and William Schroeder, all students at Kent State in 1970.
• Ezequiel Hernandez, killed while tending his goats on the Texas Border.

I'm sure there are many more, but I think the point is made.

I hope you're certain that you are important to the government.

http://www.constitution.org/

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

Cops aren't *asking* you anything but administering a breathalizer test. You aren't *giving* them information by allowing it. You are simply allowing them to *collect* information, similar to when a cop searches you for weapons.

Constitutionally, this is *perfectly* legal. If you have any doubt about this, please by all means consult a lawyer. If ANY law in your area is unconstitutional, it's your OBLIGATION as a citizen to have this law contested and repealed.

Every time I hear somebody say "this is yet another example of laws passed that are unconstitutional," I just get this knot in my stomach. If your local legislature is busy passing laws that are *actually* unconstitutional, your local government has some serious problems and needs to be fixed or overthrown ASAP. (I recommend the former.)