Slashdot Mirror

National Review couldn't figure that one out either, but there was much rejoicing at the outcome.

The Institute for Justice does great work. They're basically the libertarian version of the ACLU. Congrats to them on their victory in court.

> ...Ohio has EVERY right to do this.

States do not have the right to impose arbitrary licensing laws. E.g. Arbitrary licensing laws on hairbraiders, casket sellers, and jitney drivers have been struck down.

The first question to ask when a new licensing scheme is proposed is whether its true motivation is rent seeking rather than consumer protection. I'd be interested to see whether Mr Mumper's has received any recent contributions the from brick and mortar antique seller's lobby.

The summary above refers to Susette Kelo v. City of New London. The city is attempting to use eminent domain to take some land from people, and sell it to a private developer to develop. (I emphasize private because the case hinges on that) Cnn had a good write up here

Thank you. I enjoy thoughtful discussion.

The argument of "turning the dial" can be compared to a guest coming into my home, lighting up a cigarette, and then when I nicely ask them to put it out because I don't want to damage the health of my lungs they then flippantly say "leave the room". As soon as I start to breathe the cigarette smoke the damage is done. Yes, I can leave the room but damage has already been done and they didn't care at all about it.

It's the same thing with "turning the dial". I've already been exposed to offensive material -- the damage is already done.

Howard Stern or anybody can do whatever they want in private and deal with private consequences. But when they do things in public then they have to face good or bad public consequences. The other poster who talked about the responsibilities of freedom said it very nicely. And the poster who said that the consequence for profanity in his home was being punched -- that made me laugh. :)

Freedom is absolutely necesary and is a tool -- a tool towards the goals of making the best or smartest possible choices. Freedom is not the goal -- it's a tool to reach the goal. When freedom (or diversity) ceases to become a tool and instead becomes a goal then it's easy to forget about the responsiblities of freedom.

And yes, we should all be allowed space to make mistakes and learn along the way. Where there are disagreements we should work together and patiently try to persuade one another until we come to a common understanding.

That doesn't overshadow the fact that the consequences of obscenity pollution are just as real as the consequences of environmental pollution. Please study it at the previous link that I included above and search for others.

Thanks for listening, I'm leaving for Christmas vacation now. :)
Happy Holidays!

Roger

P.S. I'm independent - unaffiliated with a party.
Check out the ACLJ as well as the IJ

Does this mean "freedom" to hurt your neighbor or hurt your neighborhood?

If your freedoms start to infringe on my freedom and my "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" then you are abusing your freedoms.

For example, we have environmental pollution laws to prevent some from abusing their freedom to pollute the environment and cause sickness or death to others.

Someone already mentioned that obscenity is not protected by the 1st amendment as ruled by the Supreme Court back in 1973(?). I think it was Miller v. California.

If you choose to abuse your freedoms by polluting the air we breathe, or if you choose to pollute our visual or aural or mental environment with obscene images or words then you're hurting others.

Wise uses of our freedoms do not infringe on other's freedoms.

I have asthma and it's important to me that the air I breathe is clean. Likewise I have good mental health and I don't want it to be limited or destroyed with obscene pollution. The pollution of obscenity is just as real as other types of pollution. Check out some studies, meta-studies, and other articles on the topic at MIM.org

You can do whatever you want in private and then think that it only hurts yourself. But if you exercise your freedoms in a way that then harms others then it ceases to be a freedom. It's an abuse.

Roger

P.S. Check out the Institute for Justice at IJ.org

Imagine a police force based on capitalism .. what would be it's return on investment .... oh, wait ...

We've had it in some parts of the U.S. It's called "civil forfeiture", where the government takes your stuff on the theory that your stuff (not you, who are in theory entitled to a trail, but your stuff, which isn't) has commited a crime. In some places the cops get to keep the money and property confiscated.

"Ok, guys, today we can go after that street gang knocking over liquor stores...or we can go after the guy growing pot in his basement. And we'll get to take his money and his house to help fund the department...and your salaries. Whom shall we go after?"

This madness is fortunately being reigned in a little bit now.

(The irony, of course, is that libertarian capitalists fight this strongly as an infringement of not just civil liberties but "property rights", while it really is largely a result of the tax cuts and capitalist thinking that said libertarian capitalists so admire.)

If you're in such a small minority that no one provides a service catering to your special whims, then no, you shouldn't be able to choose what kind of service you want. If no email service to your liking exists, I would hope your first inclination would be to pull up your boot straps and start coding, not to head to Sacramento as a lobbyist.

Gmail regulation will probably be as good for consumers as California's regulation of African hair braiders, Tennessee's regulation of discount coffin sellers, New Orlean's regulation of curbside book vendors, or Louisiana's regulation of flower arrangers. Behind the scenes, so many times, regulation like this (to ostensibly protect consumers) is actually rent seeking: politically-connected private businesses using government to coerce a state-protected cartel for themselves.

The justification for the law sounds nice: we want to protect email users from this new, nasty, privacy-invading Gmail. But I haven't heard a peep of complaint about Gmail from users, only from Google's competition . If Open Government Information Awareness weren't down right now, I'd look up Senator Figueroa's contributors. I smell a rat.

Did the Institute for Justice's "eminent domain" ad remind anyone else of the beginning of H2G2? I guess a hyperspace bypass isn't that bad of an eminent domain abuse compared to building a limousine garage for that Vogon, Donald Trump.

Italy deregulated broadcasting (on free speach grounds), and the result was vibrant: it replaced the state-run "cathedral" with a privately run "bazaar".

The FCC is a tool to stiffle free speach. National Public Radio was one of the forces that pushed the FCC to crack down on microbroadcasters. It wasn't for fear of chaos. It was to stiffle NPR's competitors. Someone from Radio Free Berkley (true community radio, as opposed to "public" radio) once called NPR the "agent orange of grassroots radio". If NPR is agent orange, then the FCC is mustard gas.

I learned about antitrust during the MS case too. I got economics audio books on CD to listen to while commuting. My first impulse was to assume antitrust leveled the playing field. The more I learned, the more I saw the playing field being inadvertently contorted for the worse. Actually, I'm personally more concerned with how economic interventionism hurts people on the bottom rung. MS and the RIAA have a lot more clout than many others whose livelihoods are strangled by misguided government.

[off-topic soapbox]
I agree with you that Anarcho-capitalism is as unatractive as other utopian schemes. I strongly disagree that Communism is a great idea, improperly implemented. Communism isn't simply a philosophy of "general benevolence" as some people imagine. No plan based on Marx's specific ideas could lead to anything other than regimentation and misery. We have 141 years of hindsight with which to judge Das Kapital.

To me, you may as well say Nazism is a great plan that went awry. After all, Hitler didn't mention mass murders in Mein Kampf. I think if as many people read "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" (about life in a Soviet gulag) as have read "The Diary of Anne Frank", Communism would be as discredited as it deserves to be. Stalin killed more Ukrainians than Hitler killed Jews. We learned a lesson from Nazism. But it seems like the lesson from Communism hasn't sunk in as well. It's been estimated that Communist governments killed 95 million people in the 20th century. By contrast, wars killed 36 million.

I'm sure you didn't mean much by it, but the words "Communism is a great idea that didn't work out" provoke me to speak out on behalf of the dead, silent, forgotten victims of that "great idea".
[/off-topic soapbox]

Peace.

I personally can't stomach the ACLU.

I suggest that you consider either the Institute for Justice (http://www.ij.org/) or Libertarian Party (http://www.lp.org/).

...join in the ACLU [aclu.org].

IMHO, the Institute for Justice is a much more worthy organization, although it is not yet as well-known as the ACLU.

Check 'em out: http://www.ij.org/

And such an effective political institution it is.

Oh, wait:

<sarcasm>And such an effective political institution it is.</sarcasm>

When, oh when, is the EFF going to get a DC office? A friend of mine called about volunteering. Neither of us had great sums of money, but we had time. Their response?

"Oh, we only accept local volunteer help."

"That's OK, we're in DC."

"Um, we only have an office in SF."

"???"

Helloooooo--the political capital of the U.S. is in Washington, DC, not Berkeley, CA. You don't even have to rent space in the District to be effective. The NRA has a massive complex in Fairfax, VA. So why, oh why, is the EFF only in SF? Do they think that Ashcroft is going to come to them to ask them what they think? Are they going to get videoconferences with congresscritters? Do they think the'll have any political influence without playing the political game? Not with all the more money they bring to the table.

I like the ideals of the EFF, I just find it to be a fairly lackluster effort. I'd give time and what little money I can spare to an effective organization, but at the moment, my charitable money is better given to the Institute for Justice (politically unpopular with Slashdotters, I know) and the ACLU.

It's not as if there are no successful models to follow, people.

(2) We're already well down the slippery slope to where we'll have to get gov't permits to wipe our arses, and imho that slope doesn't need any more lubricant.

(3) Private credentialing bodies, insurance companies, and (arguably) the courts do a much better job of regulating professions than any government body can. Which do you trust more: the FDA, or Underwriters Labs?

DDB

This is a recent legal concept known as the "Property Rights Movement". It's an astroturf movement of mining, manufacturing, and agribusiness interests that are using property rights as a shill for rolling back protections for common resources such as streams. One of their champions is our current Secretary of the Interior, Gale Norton.
For a look at some extremist ranting on the issue, check out the West Virginia Farm Bureau.
The Institute for Justice also has a page supporting so-called Private Property Rights.

What really identifies this group as bogus is the way they've plastered pictures of black people all over their Web pages. I couldn't find a single issue they espouse that would benefit any condition that disproportionately affects blacks. The Institute for Justice is working to protect the rights of the wealthy.

n.b. I'm not against the rights of property owners. I just believe they end at your property line.

There is.

Though the Institute for Justice is mostly into economic liberty (breaking government-sanctioned monopolies), protecting homeowners from eminent domain abuse (so the govt. can't force you to sell your property at whatever price so their favorite big developer can have a bigger parking lot), and defending school choice. That said, they're very good at what they do.

Wow, I'm sorry your sex life is so bad.

More generally, the ACLU's constant preference for grandstanding over action and action in support of dubious `rights' such as the `right' to affirmative action or the `right' to welfare payments has driven away a lot of their former supporters (myself included).

If your looking for a group doing actual work toward civil liberties, you may want to check out the Institute for Justice.

The two sections of USA PATRIOT which you cite are discussed at length in the discussion attached to the journal entry I linked to above.

What they do is add another category (`organized terrorism') to the list of categories (including `organized crime/racketeering' and `espionage') for which wiretap applications can be made to the FISA court. This in no way changes the supervision of such wiretaps, merely changes the venue in which they are applied for.

As for the arrest you refer to, there are plenty of organizations, such as the Institute for Justice which can help you if your rights were violated -- as it sounds like they may have been.

But as you say, this happened two and a half years ago, so it doesn't help your claim that you've lost rights since September 11.

So yes, abuses by police officers will happen, and I'll be the first to say that the DEA has been guilty of some pretty nasty abuses in some areas, but as you yourself say, this isn't something new, nor has the legal standing of any of this changed.

You want my advice? Assuming this is not a troll, put a copy of the letter you said you received up where people can see it, and get the Institute for Justice on the phone, see if they'll take your case, and if you're in the western US, consider the Mountain States Legal Foundation as well.

These days, I much prefer the Institute for Justice.

Our Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantees us freedom from government trampling on our rights.

Individuals, corporations, etc have the freedom to do what they please to do, and the market and consumers will decide if they can deal with those issues.

The ACLU are a bunch of morons, all they do is advance socialists race-balancing theories, not protect freedom.

The only organization that actually DEFENDS freedom is the Institute for Justice.

Argh.

Laws are only as good as their enforcement. Unless there is a credible threat of force then sooner or later laws will be ignored.

Which is why our system is both democratic in nature and establishes a balance of power between local and federal, and between the branches of government.

So when was the last time the US government was fought?

This ground (restoring the limitations on government set in the Constitution) was at the heart of the `Republican Revolution' of the mid-nineties. Groups like the Institute for Justice, the Mountain States Legal Foundation and the Heritage Foundation are out there working to preserve the constitution's limitations on government every day. What are you doing to this end?

But if the State defies the constitution, then what do you do? Just about everything our Central State does violates the 10th amendment. The Constitution spells out pretty much the Central State's legit activities, but it is way out of bounds _on everything_. Just pick a topic, any topic.

Here we're mostly in agreement -- this fact was at the core of the `Republican revolution' of the mid-nineties. There are many groups, such as the Institute for Justice and the Mountain States Legal Foundation fighting the good fight in this area, though.

And just to present one coherent argument, the so-called war on terrorism is unconstitutional. The constitution sets out the process for engaging in war. Congress has not declared war. Bush is letting the military dogs out, with the Congress's approval (but not declaration of war). That's plainly unconstitutional.

This is simply incorrect. It is, of course, true that we are not in a declared war, but even outside the scope of such a conflict, the Constitution gives the President far-reaching authority to use military force, and even more recent legislation demanding approval from congress for extended use of military force has been followed scrupulously in this case. Almost since the birth of this nation, Presidents have used this authority to defend the nation and its interests -- witness Jefferson's actions against the Barbary pirates, another undeclared war against another terroristic non-state actor.

• Envy and Righteousness. Starting sometime in the early 20th century, the unsuccessful started believing that they were owed something by the successful. The turning point was FDR's New Deal, which was the birth of Big Government in the United States.
  
  And you do it too. Every time you say, "I wish the federal government would just regulate <foo>" or "I can't believe those ball players/lawyers/neurosurgeons make so much money," you're demonstrating envy and righteousness. Realize that if you think someone you don't know owes you something just because of your circumstances or his, someone else thinks the same about you. Realize that if you have the power to take away another's liberties, he has the power to take away yours. The only way to combat this is to deny government the power to forcibly take away any of our liberties.
  
  
• Inaction. Citizens who are concerned about the ever-expanding powers of our Big Government complain and complain and complain, but then continue to vote for the GOP (or, I suppose for the Democrats, though I definitely can't figure that one out) are just another part of the problem. Read my lips: The GOP is NOT a small-government party anymore! They have become addicted to your money just as the Democrats have, and now see the benefit to themselves of increasing the reach of the federal government.
  
  If you're not voting Libertarian, donating to the EFF, the ACLU or the Institute for Justice, and the NRA, your complaints about big government taking away all your freedoms one-by-one is pointless blather.
  

I'm all for anyone's right to free speech, and I used to be a big ACLU fan -- until they became much more of a lobbying organization for liberal social projects then a civil rights group (nowadays I prefer the Institute for Justice) -- but I would argue that Chomsky's support (financial and rhetorical) for Faurisson goes far beyond merely defending his rights.

Now I'm a firm believer in Faurisson's right to say whatever he wants, and of Chomsky's right to do the same. But if what Faurisson is saying is holocaust-denial, and if Chomsky is going to go on record saying that there is nothing unacceptable or ant-semitic about Faurisson's book, then of course I am not going to take either man seriously as thinkers. And that is a fact which has nothing to do with free speech.

The right to free speech isn't the right to not have people disagree with you, after all.

OK, let's look at those claims:

• Well, I guess shooting doctors doesn't count. -- the difference, of course, is that while murderers like the man who shot Dr. Slepian are granted no place in the conservative movement, and their actions are roundly decried, the left in this country openly praises thugs like the Black Panthers, and writes long editorials about how the murder of Pim Fortuyn was an understandable response to his conservative views. You have read that Dr. Slepian's murderer has been caught, by the way?
• Curbing a citizen's abilities to pursue legal activities because it clashes with religious beliefs -- can you provide a single example of this? This is just a repeat of the same smear we saw repeated so many times in the resent cloning debate here on /. -- any conservative position the left disagrees with, they accuse of being religious in nature.
• I think most people that consider themselves center to modestly left of center have no problem with rational discourse. -- don't read many politics threads here on /., do you? Even you are unwilling to accept that people rationally disagree with you without accusing them of reaching their position through religion, not reason.
• Unfortunately such a thing hasn't been heard of from our contemporary statue-covering Right -- leaving aside that the statue thing is largely a construction (a decision by a PR type to hang a backdrop behind the AG when he speaks just doesn't make as good a story, I know, but what can you do?)
• as long as Less Government only applies to money matters of the established classes and not to meddling with people's morality and curbing of civil liberties -- leaving aside the humor of hearing the party of Waco and of Elian Gonzalez, and of Filegate lecturing me about civil liberties, the fact remains that the right has made a consistent argument for the return of all levels of government to the limits set within the constitution. Long after the ACLU became nothing but a lobbying group for each latest liberal social project, conservative civil liberties groups like the Institute for Justice and the Mountain States Legal Fund soldier on fighting the good fight for the individidual rights and freedoms which are at the heart of the conservative movement.
• And finally, every poll has suggested that conservatives are anything but a minority in American society at large. If you see less conservative views on slashdot, this is a reflection of the nastiness with which such views are greeted, and of the large numbers of current college students and recent graduates posting, those who have not yet realized that the hard leftism of our campuses is out of step with reality and with our society. `They'll learn'.

I read the two ACLU articles you quoted, and I must say that I'm shocked the ACLU is against the death penalty.

Indeed, the ACLU has long since become much less of a civil liberties organization than a liberal lobbying group. In particular, they are now mostly active defending `rights' such as affirmative action, expanded welfare, and other dubious social engineering programs.

I've found the Institute for Justice to be a sensible alternative which fills the role that the ACLU used to fill.

I still don't think the EFF has done diddley to help him really.

I'd much rather see people e-mailing the REAL Lawyers who help those burned by unconstitutional laws, the Institute for Justice.

Here's a law team that really pushes the envelope on laws that are obviously unconstitutional, AND they have a long list of cases not only where they have won their client's cases, BUT THEY HAVE CHANGED THE LAWS! How's that for freedom?

Could you please post some links to information about these two cases? Thanks!

Here, or here, or just search on google.

This kind of crap is nothing new. The only thing new about it is how egregious governments are becoming about it. Now, they no longer need to lie and say it's to build a road, or expand a school. Now, they'll just come out and say it's so we can hand it over to a developer to build a shopping center.

We are losing our liberty at an alarming rate, and SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!

#include <ianal.h>

But I can read English. The Fifth Amendment says (emphasis mine):

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 offence 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.

Just an interesting "what if"....
What if Cato were to support state taxation as opposed to federal taxation of ecommerce (given that the 'no taxation' option isn't available) in the hopes of having it struck down under the Interstate Commerce Clause. It would create a rather nifty constitutional precedent and perhaps put some restraints back on the proper scope of the commerce clause...(Another case for the Institute for Justice perhaps....)

The Institute for Justice is worth checking out at http://www.ij.org . They provide legal aid to people who are fighting for free speech, free enterprise and such, and are less compromised than the ACLU.