Slashdot Mirror

I'm avoiding cryptocurrency because I don't understand anything more than the basics but the guy in the baseball cap comes across like a spoiled brat, constantly name-dropping economists, brags about how many economics books he's read, and argues based on anecdotes and emotions instead of logic.

I've been skeptical of the long term viability for a while but this debate really sealed the deal for me.

One of the people arguing for Bitcoin was again one of the big names in the community, and he was generally nutty and incoherent. I don't know if he was always that unhinged or if he'd been living inside the bubble for too long, but it was clear that at the highest levels the Bitcoin community isn't able to filter the crazy out. And when a community can't get the crazy out at the top level then the foundations are probably not that stable either.

But I doubt, this is even technically true — though this monitoring does not, as you say, directly violate the Second Amendment, that's not the accusation. All other objectionable surveillance and recording is usually denounced on the Fourth Amendment grounds — like NSA's snooping of your e-mails or phone-records, it, likely, constitutes an unreasonable search.

Actually, the fourth protects against unreasonable search and seizure, so absent a seizure as in the case of the NSA collecting records, scanning license plates may not violate the fourth. At any rate, the police observing and collecting information in plain view in public would not, IMHO, be unreasonable since you have no expectation of privacy in public.

Moreover, the very "crime", that this effort was supposed to catch/prevent — transport of the legally purchased guns across the state-lines into areas, where they are illegal — should not be a crime to begin with (unlike the terrorism NSA is after). Any State-laws banning certain kinds of weapons are themselves in violation of the Bill of Rights and ought to be protested and denounced at any opportunity far more noisily than the marijuana prohibition or "gay marriage" inequality.

The question is not can certain weapons be banned, but where to draw the line.

Monitoring =/= Rights Infringement

Even if technically true — the best kind of correct — the same folks, who usually denounce any and all "unwarranted surveillance", are surprisingly silent about this one. Silent or even approving, thus exposing themselves as hypocrites.

But I doubt, this is even technically true — though this monitoring does not, as you say, directly violate the Second Amendment, that's not the accusation. All other objectionable surveillance and recording is usually denounced on the Fourth Amendment grounds — like NSA's snooping of your e-mails or phone-records, it, likely, constitutes an unreasonable search.

Moreover, the very "crime", that this effort was supposed to catch/prevent — transport of the legally purchased guns across the state-lines into areas, where they are illegal — should not be a crime to begin with (unlike the terrorism NSA is after). Any State-laws banning certain kinds of weapons are themselves in violation of the Bill of Rights and ought to be protested and denounced at any opportunity far more noisily than the marijuana prohibition or "gay marriage" inequality.

The purchase and sale of firearms are not protected. What is, is the right to have firearms.

Distinction without difference. You can not have a weapon without buying it first. 3D-printed guns my tail — many States ban even swords and brass-knuckles, hand-made or purchased! Were we to apply this standard to the First Amendment, for example, we'd say, you have the right to speak (to yourself in the shower), but not giving a speech, nor to sell or buy a book or a magazine.

There is a really good iq2 debate about this http://intelligencesquaredus.o...

And then there's the Intelligence Squared debates which do attempt to convince people. Here's the interesting Science Refutes God debate.

This was a very interesting debate on this very issue:
http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/801-the-gop-must-seize-the-center-or-die

The classical concept of the Republican platform has broad appeal. It's why I had registered as a Republican all those years ago, but my registration doesn't guarantee my vote, the GOP doesn't offer many opportunities to vote for those kinds of ideals anymore. The GOP needs to find those ideals again to recover the popular vote, but it looks like things are going to have to get worse for the party before it learns how to get better.

This is sort of off topic but I heard a comment by Ariana Huffington in a debate on whether the US two party system is detrimental. At some point, the debate turned to job creation and she made the point that America currently ranks 10th in upward mobility, behind France. Then she said something like "The US being behind France in upward mobility is like France being behind the US in croissants and afternoon sex."

http://intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/560-the-two-party-system-is-making-america-ungovernable&tab=2
43:35

I'll start acting like there's a global climate crisis when the elite types start acting like there's a crisis. They're banning banning light bulbs and putting together a tax on energy collected by wall street (carbon credits), yet at the same time they're also flying around in private jets to get to their conferences and summits, spewing more CO2 into the air in one flight than the average american joe emits in a year...

If these concerned environmentalists are to be our leaders out of this "crisis", they must LEAD THE WAY in making sacrifices and exercising restraint, setting an example. If they don't personally believe in self-restraint, why the hell should we? The same rules should apply to all of us.

I'd rather risk living with some shitty climate change than further harden social class barriers (every solution to climate change I've heard of involves massive costs to the middle and lower classes).

There's a debate on climate change here with some pretty good arguments from both sides, for those interested. Video and a text transcript are available: http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/past-debates/item/559-global-warming-is-not-a-crisis

I was listening to NPR last night and heard this debate program (originally from April 2012):
 
  When It Comes To Politics, The Internet Is Closing Our Minds