Slashdot Mirror

You might actually want to take a look at reality then.

Let's compare the Communist Manifesto and the current state of affairs with the USA.

1. Abolition of private property in land and application of all rents of land to public purpose.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transportation in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in government schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc. etc.

So how does the USA measure up?

1. Allodial Title no longer exists
2. 30% isn't heavy??
3. You're taxed even on death ??
4, Starting with the confiscation of all gold bullion, good luck getting what the FBI and Police confescate
5. Federal Reserve ironically is nether federal, nor a reserve
6. FCC, Department of Transportation and the Interstate Commerce Commission
7. Agriculture is heavily subsidized
8. Social Security Administration and The Department of Labor
9. Planning Reorganization Act of 1949
10. Public schools, aka indoctrination

Gee, only batting a perfect 10/10 . :-(

This excellent An Underground History of American Education (PDF) book describes part of the problem.

Once upon a time it would have been unheard of to have fines for swearing on TV yet they are common place today.

What the fuck fantasy world are you living in? The Radio Act of 1927 specifically stated that programming aired by licensed broadcasters could not include "obscene, indecent, or profane language". Broadcast of such material could result in the broadcaster's license not being renewed. The Communications Act of 1934, which created the FCC, continued this tradition, stating:

SEC. 303. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, the Commission from time to time, as public convenience, interest, or necessity requires, shall- ...

(m) Have authority to suspend the license of any operator for a period not exceeding two years upon proof sufficient to satisfy the Commission that the licensee ... (4) has transmitted superfluous radio communications or signals or radio communications containing profane or obscene words or language

Thus further empowering the FCC to actively revoke the license of those violating decency standards.

In 1978, Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation explicitly empowered the FCC to prohibit the broadcast of material deemed obscene during hours when children might be among the audience.

Finally, in 2005, that fine Republican Mr. George Bush signed into law the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 which further stiffened the penalties levied by the FCC who violate decency standards.

In short, the FCC has *always* been empowered to punish those who broadcast "obscene" material over public airwaves. This tradition is nearly 80 years old, and the current powers wielded by the FCC are hardly anything new, nor were they granted by any one party or political affiliation.

Can somebody please point out this apparent "little-known" clause to the Communications Act of 1934 that was inserted during January of 1942.

You might be able to find it in the Communications Act of 1934 as amended or the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

I'm too lazy to look myself. Thanks.

And yes that little PDA can easily wreak havoc on a Broadway show, NFL broadcast or any other production. That's why we regulate the spectrum...devices operating on the same frequency will interfere.

That's not why the airwaves are regulated. The airwaves are regulated because large media companies wanted to reduce competition. Airwaves were originally homesteaded. Courts were ruling that the first person to setup a transmitter and broadcast on a specific frequency had the right to that frequency and others were not allowed to interfere with the broadcast. These rulings were based on, and the basis of, common law. Large businesses like RCA didn't like this so they convinced congress to pass laws requiring expensive licenses. By doing this they were able to reduce competition or potential competition.

Falcon

Of course people in the U.S. have been taught to believe that by the public school system which furthers a communist agenda.

Corporatism is a form of communism (i.e. the violent robbery and suppression of one group of people for the benefit of an other group) not capitalism. The fact is that the United States is not now, nor has it ever been a capitalist country. The very term "capitalist country" is itself an oxymoron. Capitalism (i.e. the individuals right to engage in economic self-determination) is fundamentally incompatible with the concept of government.

America is and always has been a communist country:

http://www.criminalgovernment.com/docs/planks.html

You're kidding me? I'm not disputing what you say as I've never been through the US education system. I just find it astonishing that Vietnam doesn't feature in a large way in the history classes. Though maybe it is the large scale protests against it that would be most troubling to some in power today.

However, the spectrum ought to be private property. This is an old, but easy to understand, argument

This is a terrible confirmation of America moving towards a totalitarian state. The sad thing is, due to mandatory education dominated by the socialist left-wing establishment, most people agree with these arguments. They don't know the truth, that is, that without the right to bear arms there are no rights.

The whole point of that right was to show that the people, not the government, were the ultimate masters. It does not matter that the militias were federalized - this is proof of ever-increasing socialist totalitarianism.

As American society "progresses" more and more towards socialism, liberty becomes more and more doomed.

For interesting reading, check out this Web site. It shows how all 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto are now a reality in America.

I think Davies has come up with a good idea, but it needs one thing - property rights. A development regime which provides some form of property rights will become increasingly necessary as space develops

Land property rights are different that plain, ordinary property rights.

Why is it that people think that you can't have capitalism without land property rights? Why do otherwise educated people from the west seem to fixate on this Medieval Idea of land ownership? Is it just because it is old and widespread in the west? Well, so is syphilis, but I don't think that makes syphilis a good thing.

The argument that it's the most efficient way to allocate scarce or valuable resources is bunk. Ever had to drive around an American city founded by a 'land run'? The number of ex-squatter 's houses that force otherwise useful through roads to dead-end is amazing (as well as other interesting geopolitical features.) Several slums exist in these cities where people refused to sell or improve the large tracts of land they got from the government at pennies on the dollar. These people forestalled development often just because they liked owning an (unused) farm.

With the exception of the freeloader and the tragedy of the commons, shared resources have many less problems than the 'stay off my land' model. (Including limiting NIMBY.) Look at the difference in progress in Open Source programming and the Intellectual-Property bound proprietary software.

I argue that space is much like the mental space or algorithms, programs and computer science/math theory. It is not like 'airable land' on the surface of the earth. The size of space is huge - and NONE of it is airable. The use of 'land' is ambiguous: your 'land claim' on a patch of surface on an asteroid is debatable if the whole asteroid is to be chewed up and used for raw materials to build something (like whole towns that are submerged under artificial damns that power serveral other towns and a small city or two and provide a conrolled body of water.) There is an inherent violation of use for natural resources in space, there's a reason NASA sterilizes spacecraft. And high cost of getting there, although it is cheap to move around once there. If you don't like IP patents like one-click or the DNS patent, I think you should object just as strongly to some one saying that they own the moon anymore than anyone else.

I'm no communist, but you can have capitalism without depending on property ownership! If the government must blow money to support and guard your property with troops and lawyers, they'll never be able to pay for important things for other people. Let the government 'own it' and everybody else use it just like any other public utility. It's just abstracting the ownsership problem back a level to force people to deal with affecting their neighboors with their so-called 'private' activities (you try living near people who plant weeds to which you and several other neighbors are dangerously allergic.)