Slashdot Mirror

I thought the court would hold that the state may prohibit using the title "engineer" commercially, to solicit business, but could not prohibit calling oneself an engineer in other contexts. In fact, the court ruled much more broadly. The ruling is that title laws in general are questionable, and must be narrowly tailored. (Though "professional engineer" and 'registered professional engineer" are still regulated).

Quoting here the part of the ruling that I found most interesting and surprising:
---
The Title laws restrict constitutionally protected speech. While the Court need not reach the question of whether the Title laws are invalid in every application, the Title laws prohibit a substantial amount of protected speech. The record demonstrates that the threat to free expression is not merely hypothetical. Therefore, "from the text of [the law] and from actual fact," the Court holds that the Title laws are substantially overbroad in violation of the First
Amendment. Virginia v. Hicks, 539 U.S. 113, 122 (2003)
---
https://ij.org/wp-content/uplo...

Indiana isn't a rich enough State to create a police state, the best they can hope for is to stomp on the rights of a few kids and maybe silence a few people who weren't sure if they wanted to speak, or not.

If Indiana does not have a police state, then they are working on financing it:

https://ij.org/press-release/i...

If you want to help solve this, donate to the Institute for Justice. They are the most prominent organization fighting "license to be employed" laws.

Not just doctors and the AMA. All kinds of work requires licenses. Even tour guides and interior decorators, in some places.

The "protect the consumer" argument is most obviously bullshit in those cases. Will a customer end up dead or crippled if someone tells tourists nonsense about the maple trees in front of the old courthouse, or abuses the Sherwin-Williams color palette?

The Institute for Justice challenges these sorts of things, a lot. https://ij.org/

Despite your seemingly "reasonable" tone and content your post is a load of rubbish. Lets look in detail.

You mistakenly presume that there is any sort of government censorship of Republicans by "left-wing thugs" to begin with. This claim does not stand up to even the most basic form of scrutiny....

That is a straw man. He didn't write that it was government censorship, but rather "left-wing thugs" shutting down speech. That is true. Here are just two of many recent examples:

College Protestors Send Professor to the ER
Conspiring to stifle free speech is a crime: Glenn Reynolds

...not to mention the judicial which now leans conservative;

Really? The judiciary "leans conservative" so soon after 8 years of Obama appointments? Of the last 24 years Democrats have had 16 years of making appointments and 8 years of obstructing Republican appointments as best they could. Trump has made 1 (one) judicial appointment that was seated only a few weeks ago. If the judiciary "now leans conservative" how are Trump's travel ban executive orders being challenged in such unprecedented ways and on what are essentially frivolous grounds? You don't know what you are talking about.

so if we are to talk realistically about what you perceive to be an infringement of your right to call those who disagree with you "left-wing thugs," your own post is clear proof to the contrary.

This is more nonsense. He isn't complaining about being unable to "call those who disagree with you "left-wing thugs," he is complaining about the left-wing thugs (previously cited) who are using violence to shut down speakers invited by or speaking from a conservative or Republicans viewpoint.

But perhaps, like many of your ilk, you are too ignorant to understand the difference between someone who disagrees with the kind of ill-informed, uneducated, right-wing vitriol that you spew, and someone who actually imposes a legal order against your ability to speak out in this "marketplace of ideas" that you vaguely refer to.

You appear to be misinformed. Mobs wielding baseball bats and fire bombs are not "someone who actually imposes a legal order against your ability to speak out." As to the question of who is "spewing" vitriol, I suggest a comparison of your response and the post you relied to. You have things backwards.

As your political class has never historically had their actual constitutional freedoms curtailed by law, perhaps a more charitable observer would forgive you for such a spectacularly persistent inability to recognize whether the government is actually oppressing you.

Oh absolutely! Who could possibly notice the infringement of rights .. which never happen?
Police Can Seize And Sell Assets Even When The Owner Broke No Law
Top Ten Worst Abuses of Eminent Domain Spotlighted in New Report
Wichita State University: Student Government Denies Recognition to Libertarian Group Because It Defends Free Speech
Part of D.C. Gun Carry Law Struck Down in Federal Court

But perhaps, like many of your ilk, you are too ignorant to understand the difference between someo

Again, the board has already said that he needs to bring this up to the City of Beaverton. It does not matter at that point if Jarlstrom is right or wrong about the math; the board can't do anything about it. He needs to address it with the city. Also I'm not a lawyer but since Jarlstrom paid his fine, I think that's an admission of guilt.

Wait, you read a month ago about a court decision that was made just two days ago?
Check the dates on http://ij.org/wp-content/uploa... and learn to fucking read before you post here. No wonder you like Reddit.

For the interested, the Institute of Justice does a lot of stuff like this. (I don't work for them, I just like their work).

They do a lot of anti-licensing work, and they seem to be very successful at it: http://ij.org/report/license-t...

In many states, you need a license to braid hair or install windows. Hell, in many states, it's easier to become licensed to be an EMT (two months of training) than hairdresser (you need to go to cosmetology school for two years)!

It's a not a red vs. blue thing: http://ij.org/report/license-t... Many deep red southern states have very strict licensing requirements too.

It's really an example of regulatory capture which the US of A is a prime example of. And I say that as a very liberal person. The Institute of Justice convincingly shows how the licensing hurts lower-income people the most, mostly cuz they can't afford the lawyers or schooling that licensing usually requires.

For the interested, the Institute of Justice does a lot of stuff like this. (I don't work for them, I just like their work).

They do a lot of anti-licensing work, and they seem to be very successful at it: http://ij.org/report/license-t...

In many states, you need a license to braid hair or install windows. Hell, in many states, it's easier to become licensed to be an EMT (two months of training) than hairdresser (you need to go to cosmetology school for two years)!

It's a not a red vs. blue thing: http://ij.org/report/license-t... Many deep red southern states have very strict licensing requirements too.

It's really an example of regulatory capture which the US of A is a prime example of. And I say that as a very liberal person. The Institute of Justice convincingly shows how the licensing hurts lower-income people the most, mostly cuz they can't afford the lawyers or schooling that licensing usually requires.

Interestingly, this article claims he is a licenced electrical engineer, but licenced in another state. Give that the case notes that he can claim to be an engineer if he is licenced anywhere else, in the US or overseas, it should be an open and shut case.

I see your point, but I take issue that violations of economic liberty are not egregious. One might argue that if you're unable to make a living without being strangled by red tape, no other issue is more important. Uber is too big to garner sympathy, but the average person who faces losing their livelihood to bureaucracy doesn't look all that different from Rosa Parks. E.g.: http://ij.org/issues/economic-...

Most of the problems are caused by small local communities using unfair seizure laws to fund their own community/special benefits.

That's not the cause, that is the problem.

But you are right to mention the "equitable sharing" program which lets local cops bypass state laws that would ordinarily make civil forfeiture much harder.

Other police work, is clearly not. There is no revenue from solving a murder, or a missing person, nor for catching a rapist, or theif.

Oh? You've never heard of civil asset forfeitures? Busting a suspected drug runner can be extremely profitable for a police department, even if he's later found to be innocent. In general you don't get your money or property back unless you're willing to fight tooth and nail in the courts for a few years, against a system that assumes you're just a lucky drug running asshole that found a loophole and wants to get back into his life of crime.

There is some substance behind the charge that the current system favors the cartels. The Institute for Justice, https://ij.org/milwaukee-taxis... has some interesting background on this.

In New York City, there were good reasons to limit the number of taxis. If we had twice the number of taxis, we would have bumper-to-bumper traffic jams during the rush hours, and nobody could use the streets. Taxi drivers are using a government resource -- the streets. The owner of those streets has a right to regulate the use of those streets in a way that maximizes their use. The owner of a private gated village has a regulate the use of cars on its streets.

Free markets don't always work, particularly when they use a common resource. It's called the tragedy of the commons.

There is some substance behind the charge that the current system favors the cartels. The Institute for Justice, https://ij.org/milwaukee-taxis... has some interesting background on this. The current system freezes all newcomers out of the market and gives the current (limited by law) permit holders a monopoly. The present system has been ruled unconstitutional: http://www.jsonline.com/news/m... The ordinance as drafted: "The proposal requires permits for all public passenger vehicles, and all vehicles must be inspected. In addition there are penalties for operating a public passenger vehicle without a permit and driving a public passenger vehicle without a license." so public safety is protected. Lyft and Uber could require drivers offering rides to have the proper licensing. These services aren't going to go away, its time to completely legitimize them.

And in the mean time, life gets interesting trying to run a business for almost 11 months without the $35,000 the IRS has "borrowed" from you.

DEHKO: Bullied by the IRS
IRS "voluntarily" dismiss two forfeiture actions...

The fourth amendment has been dead since civil forfeiture became common.

Not dead, but badly bruised and put on the cart.

That really needs to be fixed, now.

Federal Case Could Make It Easier For Victims To Defend Themselves Against Civil Forfeiture
Pennsylvania judge calls civil asset forfeiture “state-sanctioned theft”
IJ Scores Major Federal Court Victory In Massachusetts Civil Forfeiture Case
The Rise of Asset Forfeiture Abuse
Bill Would Prohibit Asset Forfeiture In Michigan Without Criminal Conviction - State has been ground zero for money and property seizures

Unless it is addressed the problem will only get worse as local and state governments face funding squeezes due to tax shortfalls and growing pension funding problems.

The fourth amendment has been dead since civil forfeiture became common.

Not dead, but badly bruised and put on the cart.

That really needs to be fixed, now.

Federal Case Could Make It Easier For Victims To Defend Themselves Against Civil Forfeiture
Pennsylvania judge calls civil asset forfeiture “state-sanctioned theft”
IJ Scores Major Federal Court Victory In Massachusetts Civil Forfeiture Case
The Rise of Asset Forfeiture Abuse
Bill Would Prohibit Asset Forfeiture In Michigan Without Criminal Conviction - State has been ground zero for money and property seizures

Unless it is addressed the problem will only get worse as local and state governments face funding squeezes due to tax shortfalls and growing pension funding problems.

There is no crown. In the US, the Feds seize first, worry about proof later. Civil forfeiture is big business, "policing for profit":

http://www.ij.org/policing-for-profit-the-abuse-of-civil-asset-forfeiture-4

Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but civil forfeiture turns that principle on its head. With civil forfeiture, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent.

Yes, letting the police keep the proceeds of civil forfeiture is an obvious moral hazard, which has lead to predictably bad results. It is hard to overstate how vile that can be in practice, and I personally think that there are police that should go to jail over it.

On the other hand, we got rid of the crown a long time ago, we are citizens, not subjects (thank God), and we didn't even have to guillotine anyone to do it. (Yet.)

There is no crown. In the US, the Feds seize first, worry about proof later. Civil forfeiture is big business, "policing for profit":

http://www.ij.org/policing-for-profit-the-abuse-of-civil-asset-forfeiture-4

Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but civil forfeiture turns that principle on its head. With civil forfeiture, your property is guilty until you prove it innocent.

Music therapy.

You both need it to take care of your issue and to learn about gov't regulations introduced now to stop competition and keep prices up, prevent (lower income) people from making income in that field.

But ifÂSB 1437Âpasses, anyone who wants to become a music therapist will face some onerous barriers: an applicant would need a bachelorâ(TM)s degree in music therapy from a program approved by the American Music Therapy Association (AMTA), at least 1,200 hours of clinical training, and 900 hours of internship experience. Practicing or calling oneself a music therapist without a government permission slip would be criminalized, with violators facing up to aÂ$500 fine and/or 30 days imprisonment.

That's what gov't regulations are all about, that and taking ppl for their money. Providing an innovating service ppl like? Ha, we are gov't, it would really be sad if you didn't pay up and something bad happened to your business.

Lawyers are one of the few priesthoods left in Western society.

These priesthood groups are growing. Foremost and most entrenched is the medical industry which controls not just doctors but also nurses, the FDA, and games most any system (medithis or that, obama/romney-care).

A recent IRS rule change is to require more training of tax preparers. So that if I wanted to do your taxes for $20, I would have to take 15 hours of their training (or some similar guideline) *OR* be in one of the annointed guilds like many CPAs. See here for a better explanation:

www.ij.org

The TSA recently became a similar guild. They say when we can travel and when we must remain where we are. Teachers unions might be another example.

No... I fear the list of government-blessed guilds is growing.

In today's America, you don't own anything that the government doesn't want you to own.
Heck, the Supreme Court ruled that the government can come in and take your house if they feel like selling it to a developer for cheap.
But to make the Feds' job a little bit harder, I hope that everyone will use the Freedom Box once it is available.
And get a real, privacy-protecting VPN while they are still legal, rather than a fake with a catchy name.

*Citation needed*
Seriously, I'd be interested, but I've never heard of any incidents like you drscirbe.

Done and done.

http://www.ij.org/texas-civil-forfeiture-background

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202447265145&Report_Blasts_States_for_Abusing_Civil_Forfeiture_Laws&slreturn=20120729114549

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLSz_p7Q1lg

A bit of Googling brings up tons of horror stories, news articles, blog posts, and discussions/debates. Those were just a few of the top results. The YT link is to a Stossel interview with Scott Bullock from the Institute for Justice.

Strat

I've read enough comments here that seem to completely miss what is going on here and are completely ignorant on the abuse by our government in violating the Fourth Amendment. The assumption by everyone seems to be one of two things. Either the police are seizing property as evidence of a crime committed (in which case, you would presume it will be returned if he's found innocent) or that he has been found guilty and they're taking his ill-gotten gains.

That is not the case.

What they're doing is taking possession of someone's property. Someone who has not been convicted of a crime through a fair trial, yet. Then they're going to sell it and keep the profit. Does that sound right to you? Shouldn't you receive a trial and be found guilty of a crime, before paying for that crime?

In fact, not only do you not have to be found guilty through trial of an actual crime in this country for the government to steal your property and sell it for themselves, but you don't have to even be charged with a crime, in many cases. I went looking for something to explain it to those who care to be enlightened (by what I thought was common knowledge, but by the reactions on Slashdot to this article, seems to be foreign to 80% of us). I actually found a well composed video that from the Institute for Justice

(video 2m30s) - Policing for Profit - The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture

Essentially, what has been happening for about thirty years, is that instead of charging YOU with a crime, the government charges your PROPERTY with a crime. Your property can't defend itself, so it is assumed "guilty". They take the property, sell it at auction, and then split it up among various government departments. All without YOU being convicted. Or even tried in a court of law. Or even being charged with a crime. It is currently a billion-dollar scam in this country.

So save your "durr durr meth dealer bad!" bullshit. You aren't a hard-ass for saying "throw away the key!" or "execute this guy!" or "he deserves it!". You just look ignorant for not considering the due process we have in this country that protects people like you and me from being railroaded without evidence. Maybe the guy IS guilty. That's fine. If he's guilty, throw the book at him. The mere fact that someone has charged him with a crime doesn't mean he deserves punishment nor that he deserves to have his property stolen from him, auctioned off, and then split amongst his local government agencies.

Police don't have the right to stop you on the street, for example, and go through your wallet and ask you for a receipt from the bank for any cash you might have, to prove you're not a thief.

Actually, they'll call it drug money and they will seize it. It's called 'civil forfeiture' and they can go and spend it on whatever they want, no judge or jury required.

A Mexican family (in AZ?) recently had their life savings stolen this way, the Town spent the money, and has refused a Judge's order to repay it. The Institute for Justice does a lot of work in this area.

The problem is if you want to become a consultant. It is impossible. To be hired as a consultant you need to be a consultant. To be a consultant you need to have more than one client. To have more than one client and you are starting out you need to start with one client. If you only have one client you are an employee not a consultant. It is similar to many cartels. The existing consultants want to prevent competition so they pass a law banning people from being considered consultants. There are many states that have licensure laws where in order to get the licence you need to be approved by people already in the industry. So the people in the industry get to decide if you are allowed to compete with them. Complete BS. The Institute for Justice routinely battles these laws. http://www.ij.org/

Republicans need to be learning new tricks. They don't have the media at their back.

For example, Dan Quayle once said, "I love California- I used to live in Phoenix." At least that's what was reported. What he DID say was more like "I love California, I live in Phoenix and have driven there many times, etc". But no: Republicans, the one-time home of Conservatism, doesn't get the benefit of the media. One channel on _cable_ or _satellite_, not wider coverage like CBS/NBC/ABC etc.

Young people everywhere hated John Ashcroft because it was reported that a soldier asked, "What happened to the armored HumVee's?" and he was quoted to have said, "You go to war with the Army you have, not the one you want." though his answer went on about three minutes. A member of the media posed the question of a soldier to make it look authentic. I've actually MET people who have hated Ashcroft for this reason- it's weird, and sad.

For having (almost) one, non-broadcast television channel and a handful of newspapers nationwide, I think they're doing pretty well. The Democrats have every Hollywood movie that comes out. Every show on Oxygen, Lifetime, Discovery, HUNDREDS of shows on HUNDREDS of channels to make their case and laugh at things like lower taxes and self-reliance. It's an uphill fight.

But it's our fault we're unhappy, now.

Democrats post "empty suit" candidates like "I voted for it, before I voted against it" Kerry, or "Soon the world will be on fire" Al Gore, or "I've been to all 57 states" Obama. Honestly: can you trust these people to park your CAR so you can find it again? These are puppets, clearly. From the people who used to bring you candidates like Truman and Roosevelt. Now, only mindless playboys seems to be in line.

The Republican side has problems, too: Semi-Conservatives. George Bush, Junior and Senior, are semi-Conservatives. Say they want smaller government, then sign-in prescription programs that no one really wants. Worse yet, McCain is a fighter pilot, chosen for our side by the media. He's gonna do whatever it takes to fulfill his goals, even if that means setting fire to the Republican party. Using "Global Warming(TM)" as a political tool, he's clearly a Liberal who wants to build government, not shrinking it.

What we all need are _Conservatives_. It's simple: smaller government for lower taxes and less intrusion.

This is Conservatism, and it wins because every time. Regan was a Conservative who followed an Liberal in the mold of AlGore/Kerry/Obama, taxing the rich so there are no jobs, taxing us 'cause there's no income to the government, and then wondering what's wrong. His election was a landslide, but that makes sense, life SUCKED economically, kinda like it does in the larger, Liberally-driven cities where people are now leaving in droves. But what's interesting is that his *re-election* was a landslide, too. That's unheard-of.

Why do you think Rush Limbaugh has an audience of 20 MILLION on (mostly) AM radio for the last two decades? Why do you think they could justify his $400M contract? It's so popular, the Left is trying to outlaw it, since their own message doesn't sell.

People _hunger_ for the life that we used to have. Now we have so much self-analysis and political correctness: a fascism of theoretical kindness. We don't need hate crimes tuned to ethnic groups- we need equal protection under the law. We don't need messing with our Freedom of Speech (Google: McCain Feingold) or Imminent Domain (see: http://www.ij.org/Private_property/connecticut) . Most people don't even know about these two incursions have taken place, thanks to the media.

Smaller government. Lower taxes. Enforce _existing_ laws. Stay _blind_ to color/race/ethnicity, protect a person's choice of religion, and all the other enumerated promises of the Constitution. No babysitting, no protecting speculators from losing money in various markets. If you rely on government instead of yourself, you'll be

Apparently, nobody RTFA? FTFA-

If a computer repair technician without a government-issued private investigator's license takes any actions that the government deems to be an "investigation," they may be subject to criminal penalties of up to one year in jail and a $4,000 fine, as well as civil penalties of up to $10,000. The definition of "investigation" is very broad and encompasses many common computer repair tasks.

*If* you take action deemed to be an investigation. Sheesh, 700+ comments, mostly out of ignorance of the facts. See something illegal, don't report it, that's it. The police don't want tainted evidence. You could still report the bugger, though...

The STORY is false and bogus in your book, yet the Institute for Justice, the nation's leading litigator for entrepeneurs, has filed a lawsuit against this new law. Interesting how their staff of attorneys and litigators was so grossly deceived by this bogus story, huh?

http://www.ij.org/first_amendment/tx_computer_repair/6_26_08pr.html

Maybe you're not familar with the Institute for Justice, the group bringing the lawsuit. ww.ij.org
Their long-term goal is to overturn the slaughterhouse cases, and find that the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment protects economic liberties.
Along the way, they have won cases for a shoe-shine guy, a hair braider, taxi drivers, a casket company, and so forth.
They don't always win - their most important failure was Kelo, the Supreme Court case about eminent domain that has gotten 40 states to change their laws.
But they have a very strong track record.
A number of states do protect economic liberties under their state constitutions.
I'm not up on Texas case law on this topic.
Recently IJ has been setting up state chapters and learning about the rights people have under their state constitutions.
You should go read your state's bill of rights - you might be surprised to learn what's in there.

Looking for a libertarian 'ACLU'? Check out the merry band of litigators at the Institute for Justice

This is just a gimmick used by those in government to push the issue away from the real issue: government's unnatural immunity against committing crimes against the People.

Seriously, I could care less about the telecoms. That's not my worry. When government tells you to jump, you jump. Gitmo is an ugly hotel for those who refuse. If the State forced me to release my logs, what can I do to fight it? Call the EFF or the IJ? That'll help, maybe 3 years down the road.

No, the real issue is the one most geeks and freedom-lovers ignore: that our elected candidates continue to violate their oath to uphold the Constitution. The President, the Senators, and almost all of the Congressional Representatives save 2 have violated this oath. The penalty should be the equivalent to the most extreme penalty available for the greatest crime that specific level of government can enforce.

Stop turning the issue to the telecoms, who are merely shills for the State. The true crime has been committed by every branch of government, and it is a crime that must be investigated. Unfortunately, the investigators are themselves, so the crime will be ignored, with the anger pointed at businesses who will likely get what they deserve.

I find the ACLU terribly racist (believing people should be grouped together rather than be individuals) and unconcerned with real direction of freedom from force.

For me, I prefer the Institute for Justice, where I donate my money towards real lawyers who get out and trample on the State that tries to trample on us. I'd never give to the ACLU, which has a history of supporting aggressive government growth when it appeals to them, versus the IJ which works against government in ever lawsuit it files or every defendant it defends.

While I may have issue with the ACLU's selective view on the Bill of Rights (they refuse to acknowledge the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right), I must admit I give kudos to them for taking this up.

Between the ACLU, NRA, and the IJ, you have pretty much all of your rights covered. It's a shame there's no one who seems to want to stand up for them all, but as long as none of these organizations are actively working against something, it's no problem to me.

You appear to have forgotten that we, too, have competition for educating "the poor" in the U.S. (Assuming you're from the U.S.). Charter schools are exactly that - they just happen to leverage publicly gathered tax dollars and allow private entities access to them. While the results have been mixed so far, there is evidence that public schools improve in areas where charter schools start up (public school teachers *are* responsive to competitive pressures! whodathunkit). For more on the fight for school choice (via charter) see: ij.org .

Additionally, Amartya Sen and other prominent economists have written extensively on how it is that the poor in "3rd world" countries actually have a fair amount of money - it's just that they have no secure place to save funds and have little access to credit to leverage their existing assets. Which is to say that many of the "poor" aren't even "poor" in the sense of utterly destitute - they're just unable to leverage institutions and assets because of the overall social infrastructure they have to survive in. It is undeniably true, however, that there are many extremely poor people who this doesn't cover (and I'm not trying to deny the gravity of their poverty), it's just that many people we label as "poor" actually have more options than we would expect.

--
learnjapanese.poddedcell.net - Step Up Nihongo, Bobby Valentine's Japanese textbook of choice!

Er...well, fine. But if you've got the votes to require them to pay for infrastructure costs, then you've got the votes to prevent any such silly things as subsidies and tax incentives, don't you?

I mean, if the citizens have already voted to subsidize development, it seems a little schizophrenic for them to then turn around and complain that development is costing them money.

Also, what makes development profits "obscene," anyway? They charge all the market will bear, surely. And what's wrong with that? Do you volunteer to get paid less than the prevailing wage for your skill set? Why would you? Let's say you've owned a house in town for 8 years, and because of whatever's driving development -- surely a skyrocketing real estate market -- you're now in a position to quadruple your money. Are you going to turn all that money down, sell your house for a nice, non-obscene profit of only 20%? Why?

No one's forcing anyone to buy the houses. If the developer puts up crappy shacks that cost him $2 each to raise, and crazies come in and buy them for half a mil, why is the developer being evil? I mean, if you offer to sell your collection of Barry Manilow 45s on eBay and some oddball buys it for $5,000, is that your fault?

I appreciate the urge to stick it to someone who's changing the terms of what you thought was a life-time deal, especially someone big and faceless with a lot of pocket change. But I'd stop and wonder whether the principle of the thing is a good idea. Once you start saying it's cool for the majority to stick it to big mass developers, munging up the concept of property rights in the process, where will it stop? Think government is just going to let that power lie around unused when there's no big boys to beat up? Think again. Power once put into the hands of government is never allowed to gather dust. Then one day when you find yourself on the other side of the deal -- think Susette Kelo -- you could seriously regret your previous support for an erosion of the ability of the private owner to defy the will of the majority. You have to bear in mind that the law can make no distinction in principle between Joe A. Smallhomeowner and ReallyReallyBig Developers, Inc. (I'm not saying such a distinction can't exist in practise, but that's a matter for the citizens watching their elected officials like a hawk and holding them accountable every November.)

Google: "illegal car seizure sold at auction 60 minutes drugs"

A car seized illegally: http://www.ij.org/private_property/new_jersey/back ground.html

A man KILLED due to an illegal search: http://www.fear.org/scott.html

Years ago there were many stories in the popular press (I used to read them in the Houston Chronicle) about the "War on Drugs" and automatic seizure. People losing their houses, cars, etc., because an erroneous "tip" led to a seizure, and since their stuff is gone they don't have the money to sue to get it back.

There goes your bullshit.

You are absolutely correct. In the end, all rights are property rights.

When a government or society treats your land as being partially public property (property taxes are legitimized by the belief that "we all own the land"), or subject to confiscation in the name of the greater good (eminent domain), it's one step away from treating your house as public property. "You can't build that kind of house because it doesn't meet our building codes...never mind that you've agreed to assume all liability for living in it and any effects it might have on your neighbors, but no, you cannot build that straw-bale or adobe house here."

Now that you've gotten used to having your land and home treated as partially public property, it's one more step to treating your body as public property. "No, you cannot have that MS treatment because we believe it's not in your best interest. Never mind that you supposedly own your own body, and that you're an adult who is willing to assume all risk for the treatment."

And then from there, it's another step to treating your thoughts and feelings as partially public property.

And this slippery slope begins when someone violates your propert rights: land > home > body > mind.

Just for the record, I agree with the rest of your post. However, this isn't a mere violation of contract. You see, a contract was never made. In this case, the user refused to "sign" the "contract" (although I'm not really agreeing that a EULA is a valid contract...). Despite the fact that the user did not enter into a contract, Sony still "trespassed" on their system. Honestly, this case could be prosecuted in a myriad of ways in a criminal court. It could be considered trespassing, vandalism, espionage, deceptive trade practices, and several more outlandish violations of the law.

I had about 5 similar replies, but I'll only reply to one (for now).

I believe, fully, that the contract between a consumer and a manufacturer should actually be created through the retail outlet. I'm not talking about a "de facto" type agreement that is binding always and every time. I mean a contract that basically stipulates that what I am buying will do no harm without warning me, unless I am at fault for using the item incorrectly. If it does, we have the retailer to go after.

I've spoken with 5 free market law groups (one being http://www.ij.org/ ) and from what I can tell, we should be suing the retailer, not Sony. The retailer has sold a product that was unsafe for the purchasing party, and the retailer should be responsible.

The reason? Retailers (I own 2 stores) should check their product before selling it -- IF the contract with the purchaser stipulates this. In a free market, I believe we'd see such stipulations. In a heavily regulated one, government has allowed everyone to be protected EXCEPT the consumer. In cses where the consumers are hurt in large numbers, they have almost no ability to find restitution.

Lately I've commented myself about the EFF's failures in the recent past. I usually get flamed for it.

I think the article is way too harsh but more on the money than most believe. I've always felt they were a shill for mercantilist businesses.

I support the Institute for Justice. These guys are about freedom and focus on winning. I will never support the EFF who only want some freedom at the expense of supporting the political growth of power.

I still say the Institute for Justice is way cooler than the ACLU...

Your attempts to put every voter, party and politician in the "stupid" basket is an insult to those who fight this kind of nonsense.

Voting today will always be voting for the less r of two great evils. Candidates know the power they'll have to abuse. Only 1 Congressman in 42 years has voted Constitutionally. ONE.

Instead of blaming others (a very immature tactic) consider the things you might actually do to fight this:

I will blame those who enabled these tyrants. The voters.

* Join the EFF

Useless. Not one thing they've lobbied against has been prevented. Instead I support the Institute for Justice who have a proven track record.

* Write your congressperson/senators when they do something you really like or don't like

Yea, that works. Never has, never will. Democrats and Republicans equally break the Constitution.

* Tell other people how you feel outside of slashdot

I do. My newsletter was hitting almost 2000 daily readers, almost all who stopped voting.

* Join the ACLU

The ACLU is pro-racism, anti-male and anti-work. I would never support them.

What have *you* done lately?

More than you could imagine.

Ever since the Kelo vs. New London case that was discussed here on Slashdot, I have wondered how long the sanctity of patenting would last, being the whole idea behind the eminent domain is the condemnation of private ownership when many would benefit from its deprivatization. The Supreme Court of this Land has said its OK to do this.

So how long can patents stand up if people have already lost their homes? We are talking real physical property confiscated, not just some permission from our government to do something while keeping anybody else from doing it too.

I somewhat anxiously await the day when businesses are prohibited from putting up fences to deter pedestrian traffic in this day of oil shortgages and as we try to encourage pedestrian, rather than motored, means of public transport. The situation coming immediately to mind is the Colton Company, who "repaired" the holes in the fences adjoining Anaheim Stadium right before the big game, so pedestrians would have to travel an extra mile out of their way to get to the game. If peoples very homes can be condemned so a business can take their land, can these very laws be interpreted to inhibit businesses from placing blockages on their land so that pedestrians can't even pass through?

I think we need enough people aware of what gift the Supreme Court has awarded us, and USE it! The Supreme Court of this Land has already said if more people would benefit from deprivatization, its OK to do so. So what are we waititng for?

( Yeh, some people may think this is flamebait. What I really want is to plant an idea and make everyone THINK about whats happening here... )

I'll decide whether I want them to have a license or certification or not.

In most jurisdictions, many types of business activity (construction, engineering, etc) are regulated and require a license, allegedly to protect the public from their own stupidity. And the idea, in general, is sound.

Of course, you sometimes get idiotic government like Louisiana which requires florists to get a certification to sell flower arrangements.

In the US, the government spends more per capita than in Sweden. Cradle to grave is a fair description. Cradle manufacture and marketing is supervised by not less than 13 government agencies.
The institute for justice http://www.ij.org/ has been doing a series of cases about the right to sell caskets without having an undertaker's license.

Not in Donald Trump.

http://www.ij.org/private_property/atlantic_city/

A lot of the posts seem to imply that conservative justices are to blame here. If anything, the *liberal* and moderate justices are the majority opinion in this case, not the other way around.

If you find yourself generally liberal, especially on social issues, but also strongly respect private property rights and such, you should really look at the libertarians (it was a group of libertarian lawyers ( http://www.ij.org/ ), representing the people whose homes are being seized).

lp.org is a decent place to start for that, and there are several "libertarian faqs" out there. ( http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/libertarianism.html ) is one.

A liberal refutation (that I *personally* think is largely strawman attacks, as the arguments he debunks are neither convincing nor the ones that I had heard of) is the "Non libertarian FAQ", one mirror at http://world.std.com/~mhuben/faq.html .

One proposal is that the compensation paid for the land should be for the rezoned purpose, and not four the current use.

Do a Google search for the case Kelo vs. New London. It has been subject to considerable discussion in many places.

For anyone considering moving states and buying a house, this is going to make them think very carefully about buying a home close to a business park, strip mall or hotel. I wonder if the city councils have considered how this is going to affect their property taxes.

It was IJ's lawers who made it possible to take this case to the SCOTUS and to win the case.

http://ij.org/economic_liberty/ny_wine/5_16_05pr.h tml