Slashdot Mirror

Africa Initiative
Ageing
Agriculture
Atomic Energy
Children
Climate Change
Culture
Decolonization
Demining
Development
Cooperation
Persons with
disabilities
Disarmament
Drug control
& Crime Prevention
Education
Elections

Energy
Environment
Family
Food
Governance
Habitat
Health
Human Rights
Humanitarian Affairs
Indigenous People
Intellectual Property
International
Finance
Labour
International Law
Law of the Sea
& Antartica
Least Developed
Countries
Question of
Palestine
Peace
& Security
Population
Refugees
Social Development
Outer Space
Statistics
Sustainable
Development
Trade &
Development
Volunteerism
Women
Youth

Africa Initiative
Ageing
Agriculture
Atomic Energy
Children
Climate Change
Culture
Decolonization
Demining
Development
Cooperation
Persons with
disabilities
Disarmament
Drug control
& Crime Prevention
Education
Elections

Energy
Environment
Family
Food
Governance
Habitat
Health
Human Rights
Humanitarian Affairs
Indigenous People
Intellectual Property
International
Finance
Labour
International Law
Law of the Sea
& Antartica
Least Developed
Countries
Question of
Palestine
Peace
& Security
Population
Refugees
Social Development
Outer Space
Statistics
Sustainable
Development
Trade &
Development
Volunteerism
Women
Youth

Africa Initiative
Ageing
Agriculture
Atomic Energy
Children
Climate Change
Culture
Decolonization
Demining
Development
Cooperation
Persons with
disabilities
Disarmament
Drug control
& Crime Prevention
Education
Elections

Energy
Environment
Family
Food
Governance
Habitat
Health
Human Rights
Humanitarian Affairs
Indigenous People
Intellectual Property
International
Finance
Labour
International Law
Law of the Sea
& Antartica
Least Developed
Countries
Question of
Palestine
Peace
& Security
Population
Refugees
Social Development
Outer Space
Statistics
Sustainable
Development
Trade &
Development
Volunteerism
Women
Youth

Africa Initiative
Ageing
Agriculture
Atomic Energy
Children
Climate Change
Culture
Decolonization
Demining
Development
Cooperation
Persons with
disabilities
Disarmament
Drug control
& Crime Prevention
Education
Elections

Energy
Environment
Family
Food
Governance
Habitat
Health
Human Rights
Humanitarian Affairs
Indigenous People
Intellectual Property
International
Finance
Labour
International Law
Law of the Sea
& Antartica
Least Developed
Countries
Question of
Palestine
Peace
& Security
Population
Refugees
Social Development
Outer Space
Statistics
Sustainable
Development
Trade &
Development
Volunteerism
Women
Youth

Africa Initiative
Ageing
Agriculture
Atomic Energy
Children
Climate Change
Culture
Decolonization
Demining
Development
Cooperation
Persons with
disabilities
Disarmament
Drug control
& Crime Prevention
Education
Elections

Energy
Environment
Family
Food
Governance
Habitat
Health
Human Rights
Humanitarian Affairs
Indigenous People
Intellectual Property
International
Finance
Labour
International Law
Law of the Sea
& Antartica
Least Developed
Countries
Question of
Palestine
Peace
& Security
Population
Refugees
Social Development
Outer Space
Statistics
Sustainable
Development
Trade &
Development
Volunteerism
Women
Youth

Africa Initiative
Ageing
Agriculture
Atomic Energy
Children
Climate Change
Culture
Decolonization
Demining
Development
Cooperation
Persons with
disabilities
Disarmament
Drug control
& Crime Prevention
Education
Elections

Energy
Environment
Family
Food
Governance
Habitat
Health
Human Rights
Humanitarian Affairs
Indigenous People
Intellectual Property
International
Finance
Labour
International Law
Law of the Sea
& Antartica
Least Developed
Countries
Question of
Palestine
Peace
& Security
Population
Refugees
Social Development
Outer Space
Statistics
Sustainable
Development
Trade &
Development
Volunteerism
Women
Youth

Africa Initiative
Ageing
Agriculture
Atomic Energy
Children
Climate Change
Culture
Decolonization
Demining
Development
Cooperation
Persons with
disabilities
Disarmament
Drug control
& Crime Prevention
Education
Elections

Energy
Environment
Family
Food
Governance
Habitat
Health
Human Rights
Humanitarian Affairs
Indigenous People
Intellectual Property
International
Finance
Labour
International Law
Law of the Sea
& Antartica
Least Developed
Countries
Question of
Palestine
Peace
& Security
Population
Refugees
Social Development
Outer Space
Statistics
Sustainable
Development
Trade &
Development
Volunteerism
Women
Youth

Africa Initiative
Ageing
Agriculture
Atomic Energy
Children
Climate Change
Culture
Decolonization
Demining
Development
Cooperation
Persons with
disabilities
Disarmament
Drug control
& Crime Prevention
Education
Elections

Energy
Environment
Family
Food
Governance
Habitat
Health
Human Rights
Humanitarian Affairs
Indigenous People
Intellectual Property
International
Finance
Labour
International Law
Law of the Sea
& Antartica
Least Developed
Countries
Question of
Palestine
Peace
& Security
Population
Refugees
Social Development
Outer Space
Statistics
Sustainable
Development
Trade &
Development
Volunteerism
Women
Youth

Africa Initiative
Ageing
Agriculture
Atomic Energy
Children
Climate Change
Culture
Decolonization
Demining
Development
Cooperation
Persons with
disabilities
Disarmament
Drug control
& Crime Prevention
Education
Elections

Energy
Environment
Family
Food
Governance
Habitat
Health
Human Rights
Humanitarian Affairs
Indigenous People
Intellectual Property
International
Finance
Labour
International Law
Law of the Sea
& Antartica
Least Developed
Countries
Question of
Palestine
Peace
& Security
Population
Refugees
Social Development
Outer Space
Statistics
Sustainable
Development
Trade &
Development
Volunteerism
Women
Youth

Africa Initiative
Ageing
Agriculture
Atomic Energy
Children
Climate Change
Culture
Decolonization
Demining
Development
Cooperation
Persons with
disabilities
Disarmament
Drug control
& Crime Prevention
Education
Elections

Energy
Environment
Family
Food
Governance
Habitat
Health
Human Rights
Humanitarian Affairs
Indigenous People
Intellectual Property
International
Finance
Labour
International Law
Law of the Sea
& Antartica
Least Developed
Countries
Question of
Palestine
Peace
& Security
Population
Refugees
Social Development
Outer Space
Statistics
Sustainable
Development
Trade &
Development
Volunteerism
Women
Youth

Africa Initiative
Ageing
Agriculture
Atomic Energy
Children
Climate Change
Culture
Decolonization
Demining
Development
Cooperation
Persons with
disabilities
Disarmament
Drug control
& Crime Prevention
Education
Elections

Energy
Environment
Family
Food
Governance
Habitat
Health
Human Rights
Humanitarian Affairs
Indigenous People
Intellectual Property
International
Finance
Labour
International Law
Law of the Sea
& Antartica
Least Developed
Countries
Question of
Palestine
Peace
& Security
Population
Refugees
Social Development
Outer Space
Statistics
Sustainable
Development
Trade &
Development
Volunteerism
Women
Youth

Africa Initiative
Ageing
Agriculture
Atomic Energy
Children
Climate Change
Culture
Decolonization
Demining
Development
Cooperation
Persons with
disabilities
Disarmament
Drug control
& Crime Prevention
Education
Elections

Energy
Environment
Family
Food
Governance
Habitat
Health
Human Rights
Humanitarian Affairs
Indigenous People
Intellectual Property
International
Finance
Labour
International Law
Law of the Sea
& Antartica
Least Developed
Countries
Question of
Palestine
Peace
& Security
Population
Refugees
Social Development
Outer Space
Statistics
Sustainable
Development
Trade &
Development
Volunteerism
Women
Youth

Africa Initiative
Ageing
Agriculture
Atomic Energy
Children
Climate Change
Culture
Decolonization
Demining
Development
Cooperation
Persons with
disabilities
Disarmament
Drug control
& Crime Prevention
Education
Elections

Energy
Environment
Family
Food
Governance
Habitat
Health
Human Rights
Humanitarian Affairs
Indigenous People
Intellectual Property
International
Finance
Labour
International Law
Law of the Sea
& Antartica
Least Developed
Countries
Question of
Palestine
Peace
& Security
Population
Refugees
Social Development
Outer Space
Statistics
Sustainable
Development
Trade &
Development
Volunteerism
Women
Youth

Africa Initiative
Ageing
Agriculture
Atomic Energy
Children
Climate Change
Culture
Decolonization
Demining
Development
Cooperation
Persons with
disabilities
Disarmament
Drug control
& Crime Prevention
Education
Elections

Energy
Environment
Family
Food
Governance
Habitat
Health
Human Rights
Humanitarian Affairs
Indigenous People
Intellectual Property
International
Finance
Labour
International Law
Law of the Sea
& Antartica
Least Developed
Countries
Question of
Palestine
Peace
& Security
Population
Refugees
Social Development
Outer Space
Statistics
Sustainable
Development
Trade &
Development
Volunteerism
Women
Youth

The Quotable Harry Browne on Social Security: "Social Security is inherently unsound for the simple reason that it's a political program run by politicians for political purposes. It will never work and it will never be truly solvent. The only answer is to take it completely out of the hands of the politicians." "Social Security brings a new dimension to the field of annuities, insurance, and retirement. There are no long, complicated contracts. No actuarial tables to pore over. Instead, Social Security operates on a very simple principle: the politicians take your money from you and squander it." "Phasing out Social Security over many years won't work. The first time the stock market dives, the Democrats and the Republicans will use that as an excuse to take over your retirement once again." "You're told the government has to run your retirement for you because some people are too irresponsible to do so for themselves. But it's wrong to take responsibility for your retirement away from you simply because some other people are irresponsible." The Truth About Social Security I know a dandy way you can make a lot of money. Here's the idea: Offer a retirement plan that pays a pension more generous than people can get elsewhere. Every payday each customer will pay you a small portion of his paycheck -- say, 2%. You promise that when he reaches age 62 you'll send him a monthly check equal to what he was making when he retired. As the money comes in from your first customers, spend it and live a lush life. You really won't need to keep money in reserve for your customers' retirement. When the time comes to pay them, do it with money you receive from new, younger customers. So long as you keep attracting new customers to pay into the plan, you'll be okay. If you have trouble attracting enough new money to keep your promises, then just change the rules. Either raise the retirement age to 65 or lower the promised benefits. Or raise the amounts deducted from your customers' paychecks -- from 2% to 5% to 10% to 15%, however much you need. Of course, if you try this the government will shut you down, haul you into court, and send you off to prison. You'd be operating a Ponzi scheme -- named after Charles Ponzi, who set up a similar plan in Boston in 1920. He promised to pay investors 50% profit on their money in just 45 days. Gullible people poured money into his plan. But he couldn't possibly earn enough on the money to equal the rate of return he promised. So when someone wanted to withdraw his principal and interest, Ponzi simply paid him from money received from new investors. Eventually he couldn't meet the demands for repayment, and his scheme collapsed. He ended up in jail. But another such scheme was started in 1935, and this one is still going. It's called Social Security. It, too, is a Ponzi scheme. When Social Security was established in 1935, a trust fund was set up -- to keep the money collected in taxes, so it could be returned with interest to each taxpayer when he retired. But it took politicians only four years to change the rules. Politicians can't be expected to keep their hands off a large sum of money. So in 1939 they transformed Social Security into a "pay as you go" system -- one in which the amounts paid to beneficiaries come from taxes collected from other people the same year. The Social Security tax you pay isn't put aside as a nest egg for you. It is paid out to others older than you. The money your grandmother receives from Social Security comes from your paycheck. And if you receive anything from Social Security, even if you've been paying into it for 40 years, what you get will be taken from the paychecks of younger people. Social Security differs from a Ponzi scheme in only two ways: The politicians won't arrest themselves. The politicians can change the rules whenever necessary to keep the scheme going. And, in fact, the rules are changed almost yearly. The tax rate is increased about once every three years. The portion of your wages subject to Social Security tax has risen twenty times -- from an original maximum of $3,000 to the current $60,600. And the benefit schedules are changed frequently. Consequently, what was once a $60 annual tax is now as much as $9,271. But the game is getting tougher. As life expectancy rises, a larger and larger share of the population is retired. That means each person still working has to support more people who are collecting. This leads to a Social Security crisis every few years. It becomes apparent that current rates of taxation and benefits will lead to insolvency within a few years. To fix this, a bipartisan commission is appointed, taxes are raised, benefits are changed, and Social Security is pronounced completely safe and secure for another 50 years. But time seems to go by rather quickly in the political world. The 50 years seem to last only a few years -- until it becomes apparent that current rates of taxation and benefits will lead to insolvency within a few years. So another bipartisan commission is appointed, taxes are raised, benefits are changed, and Social Security is again pronounced completely sound and secure for another . . . Well, you get the point. The tax rate has risen sevenfold since Social Security's founding in 1935. Today your employer must deduct 7.65% from the first $60,600 of your income each year. In addition, he has to match that dollar for dollar. So roughly 15% of the first $60,600 of your employment earnings is lost to Social Security. Lower Benefits? Most people think Congress would never renege on its promises to Social Security recipients -- no matter how bad federal finances become. But when the only alternatives are to raise the Social Security tax rate to 35% or 40% -- or to cut off food stamps to the poor -- there may be no choice but to cut Social Security benefits. The politicians who once were so keen on sharing the wealth will now ask you to share the pain -- at a time in your life when you may not have the option to go back to work and make up the difference. Or Higher Taxes? Economists Joel Kotlikoff, Alan Auerbach, and Jagadeesh Gokhale project that rising costs for Social Security, Medicare, government pensions, and interest on the debt will require future generations to pay the government 71% of everything they earn during their lifetimes. The only alternative is for government to renege on many of the promises it has made. What kind of lives will our grandchildren have if they can keep only 29% of what they earn? It isn't just rhetoric when someone says we're passing the bills for government spending on to our children -- although we may think our children will pass the bills on to their children. Each generation may pass the debt on, but it can't pass on the interest. That has to be paid yearly -- and it keeps getting larger. Every generation already is suffering from the government spending of earlier generations, and the bills get larger and larger. Our parents paid around 35% of their income in taxes. Now the Census Bureau says 47% of the national income goes to federal, state, and local taxes. What will it be for the next generation? 55%? 60%? 71%? Ignoring the Problem The politicians refuse to acknowledge any of this -- and so nothing is done to stop the costs from mounting higher. Politicians still cite Social Security as a crowning achievement of the New Deal -- as proof that "government works." Both Democrats and Republicans use Social Security as a political football -- warning the elderly that their opponents will water down their Social Security or Medicare benefits, while denying any intent to do so themselves. And both are afraid the denials won't be believed. Public Skepticism The public knows better. Polls routinely show that about two thirds of the American people don't expect to receive a dime from Social Security. Even among people who are only 15 years from retirement, two out of five don't expect Social Security to survive until they start drawing their pensions. The public is right. Social Security is broken, and it soon will collapse. The Perfect System But until we know what Social Security should be, there's no basis for reform. If we were starting from scratch, what kind of system would we create? Obviously, it should be a fully funded system. The money you put in should be saved and invested on your behalf. And what you receive when you retire should be based on what you put in. With this system, your pension wouldn't rely on taking money from future generations. Actually, a fully funded system already exists. In fact, there are many of them. They are lifetime annuities offered by private insurance companies. You pay into the annuity over the years, the insurance company invests the money for you, and it pays you a lifetime pension when you retire. When you own an annuity, you have a firm contract with an insurance company. You know how much you have to pay every year -- and, unless you agree otherwise, the amount you pay never changes. You know how much you'll receive when you retire -- and, unless you agree otherwise, the amount you'll receive is guaranteed. This is the voluntary, contractual, non-political way of providing for "Social Security." When you have an annuity, you don't have to worry that Congress will change the rules. Many employers already provide pensions for their employees. If there were no Social Security system, competition for the best employees would inspire a great many more to do the same. What Should We Do? Private annuities work. They've existed for hundreds of years. Government doesn't work, although it has existed for thousands of years. Political Social Security is a fraud that can never be fixed. It is headed for bankruptcy. The only question is what to do about it. In looking for a solution, we must face up to one inescapable truth: Given the current tax rates and the promised benefits, there is no way everyone can get from Social Security what he's been told he will get. Most of the trillions of dollars paid into Social Security over the past 60 years have been spent. The money can't be retrieved. The promised benefits can be paid only if the Social Security tax is raised sharply. Or the tax can be kept where it is now, but only by reneging on the promised benefits. So we really have only two choices: Keep patching up Social Security, either by raising the Social Security tax until it reaches, say, 70% -- or by reducing benefits steadily until they're the equivalent of about $100 per month. Or . . . Act now to stop the problem from growing. Stop promising increased benefits, and get government out of Social Security entirely, so that no one will ever again be cheated by it. Social Security will always be a tool for politicians to one-up their opponents by promising bigger benefits now and leaving the necessary taxes for their successors to impose. So it will be a chronic problem until we get it out of the hands of the politicians. And the longer we wait to do this, the more painful it will be when we do. How to Save Your Retirement, Rather than Social Security Republican and Democratic politicians keep talking about "saving Social Security." But why should we want to save a bankrupt system that's a bad deal for everyone participating in it? What we really want is to free you from the 15% Social Security tax, while making sure that no one dependent on Social Security today loses what has been promised. Because expectations for receiving Social Security benefits are so low, we may be able to solve the problem at a relatively small cost -- if we get the government out now. Millions of people depend on Social Security today. They worked for decades. Their plans assumed that Social Security would provide some part of their retirement. I believe these people must receive what they were promised. But I don't trust the politicians to do it. Instead, the government should buy from a private insurance company an annuity for everyone who depends on Social Security. The annuities should provide lifetime incomes similar to what Social Security has promised. How much will this cost? A mountain of money. The exact size of the mountain is something only the government has the information to calculate. But, based on the amounts now being paid out each year, I estimate the cost to be roughly $5 trillion. This is, in effect, the accumulated deficit of 60 years of "pay as you go." Because there the government doesn't have enough money to cover all the liabilities, I believe annuities should be provided only for those who truly need them. This means some kind of simple, non-intrusive means test must be applied to each retiree. Those that don't rely on Social Security shouldn't aggravate the problem further. The maximum monthly Social Security benefit is $1,433; there are many retired people to whom that isn't a critical amount. People over the age of 50 who are nearing retirement and who have made plans based on receiving Social Security should also receive annuities. Those annuities would be smaller and wouldn't begin paying out until age 65. Of the current retirees and those over 50 who qualify for the annuities, I would hope that a great many would waive the right to an annuity and get along by other means -- although we can't count on that. In the next section I'll discuss a way to pay for the annuities without providing any additional burden on you and other taxpayers. And what about those under 50? To them we offer the greatest gift possible: You will never again have to pay the 15% Social Security tax. You will be able to fund a real retirement for yourself -- putting aside 5%, 10%, 15%, or whatever you want from your pay -- instead of paying 15% to Social Security. By starting before you pass 50, you can easily accumulate the necessary capital to provide a benefit at least as large as Social Security had promised. What Kind of America? We need to decide what kind of America we want. Do we want a country that sinks ever more deeply into debt -- in which generations fight with each other over a constantly shrinking pie? Or do we make the changes necessary now and get America back on track again -- so that people are no longer wards of the state? We can have a country in which our citizens are responsible, self-reliant, and self-respectful. With regard to Social Security, we have only two choices: Get Social Security completely out of the hands of the government -- and do it quickly. Give everyone a fresh start with a guarantee that from now on he'll get what he's promised. Leave it all in the politicians' hands -- and put up with periodic crises, higher and higher taxes, and more and more hostility between the generations. For me the choice is obvious. Your vote for a Libertarian President will be a statement that the Democrats' and Republicans' puny plans for Social Security aren't good enough. You want the freedom to plan a secure retirement for yourself.

I have a few ideas to suggest that may not be very popular, but which would probably help a lot. Most of "my" ideas about this aren't really my own - I'll try to credit where credit it due.

• I think the primary principle that we need to add is the concept of the Unity of Humanity. Can anyone doubt that will now live in a global society? We travel and communicate with a facility and frequency that would utterly astound people from even 25 years ago. Our national economies are so tightly interlinked it is ridiculous. Corporations have known this for a long time and have a huge lead on social institutions as a result. Our social institutions, (dare I say it here) government must catch up and the only way is by organizing at a global level. The UN and the Baha'i community are both diverse global organizations that are working on putting this principle into practice. Our technological efforts must be refocused in such a way as to bring the greatest benefit to humanity. Environmental issues also come under this category.
• As a consequence of the previous point, we need to inform ourselves of globally held beliefs about the fundamental rights of people. The vast majority of countries in the world have agreed on just such a list of rights in the form of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Any technological and societal developments need to be carefully examined with this fundamental statement of rights in mind. This might mean that Napster should be stopped - or it might mean that it should be promoted - but either way, we need to look at the effects of new technologies on these rights and always choose rights ahead of what is new and cool and in our own personal interest.
• The final principle, which is implied by the previous two points, is that technologies are not "neutral". This will be a big point of contention with many here on Slashdot, but I hold to it. Marshall McLuhan has said "the medium is the message" - what is this other than a statement that technologies have very specific measurable effects on people and societies. These effects are not neutral. For a simple example, consider the lightbulb - it requires a very large power generation and distribution infrastructure in order to be useful. The creation and operation of that infrastructure has societal effects - some good, some bad - definately not neutral.

I am writing a paper on the topic of the careful pursuit of technology. It is in progress so my appologies for the rough and unsubstantiated parts :) A book called The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom has some very interesting related points and is generally a good read.

I have a few ideas to suggest that may not be very popular, but which would probably help a lot. Most of "my" ideas about this aren't really my own - I'll try to credit where credit it due.

• I think the primary principle that we need to add is the concept of the Unity of Humanity. Can anyone doubt that will now live in a global society? We travel and communicate with a facility and frequency that would utterly astound people from even 25 years ago. Our national economies are so tightly interlinked it is ridiculous. Corporations have known this for a long time and have a huge lead on social institutions as a result. Our social institutions, (dare I say it here) government must catch up and the only way is by organizing at a global level. The UN and the Baha'i community are both diverse global organizations that are working on putting this principle into practice. Our technological efforts must be refocused in such a way as to bring the greatest benefit to humanity. Environmental issues also come under this category.
• As a consequence of the previous point, we need to inform ourselves of globally held beliefs about the fundamental rights of people. The vast majority of countries in the world have agreed on just such a list of rights in the form of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Any technological and societal developments need to be carefully examined with this fundamental statement of rights in mind. This might mean that Napster should be stopped - or it might mean that it should be promoted - but either way, we need to look at the effects of new technologies on these rights and always choose rights ahead of what is new and cool and in our own personal interest.
• The final principle, which is implied by the previous two points, is that technologies are not "neutral". This will be a big point of contention with many here on Slashdot, but I hold to it. Marshall McLuhan has said "the medium is the message" - what is this other than a statement that technologies have very specific measurable effects on people and societies. These effects are not neutral. For a simple example, consider the lightbulb - it requires a very large power generation and distribution infrastructure in order to be useful. The creation and operation of that infrastructure has societal effects - some good, some bad - definately not neutral.

I am writing a paper on the topic of the careful pursuit of technology. It is in progress so my appologies for the rough and unsubstantiated parts :) A book called The Closing of the American Mind by Allan Bloom has some very interesting related points and is generally a good read.

Well, even I, half a world away, here in europe, have gotten the impression that Bush Jr is an extremely slimy little nasty frog. Very pro capital punishment and other non civilized stuff. BTW, capital punisment is a crime against the Universal declaration of human rights, in case you didn't know. (3rd paragraph).

On the other hand, all europeans are commies, aren't we? ;-)

--

"I'm surfin the dead zone

We just need for the US government to choose to sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognize it as a treaty; it would then override the Constitution itself per Article VI.

Whoa! No we do not. I prefer capitalism, free markets and a semblance of democracy over the socialistic totalitarianism the UN promotes. You'll note that the right to keep and bear arms is mentioned NO WHERE in the UN's declaration. Nor are any open ended articles, such as the ninth ammendment from the US BoR, made declaring that humans have rights that "we may not have mentioned or anticipated."

Without an armed populace, nothing prevents the standing government from changing the rules.

Again, we have the privelege of being able to use encryption to prevent snooping.

No, actually, that one's a right; Freedom of Speech.

Nowhere does our Constitution guarantee "freedom of speech, but only in English". We have an absolute right for that speech to be gobbledigook, or to merely seem like gobbledigook until the proper key is applied.

We desperately need a constitutional amendment guaranteeing us a right to privacy, including encryption and control of our data.

We just need for the US government to choose to sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognize it as a treaty; it would then override the Constitution itself per Article VI.

--

Well they have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

The BIll of Rights isn't the only human rights document on the planet.

Artificial islands, installations and structures do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf.

Basically what I am saying is that they do not have to treat you with 'kid gloves' like most countries treat other countries. They won't hold back or care about protocol.

Artificial islands, installations and structures do not possess the status of islands. They have no territorial sea of their own, and their presence does not affect the delimitation of the territorial sea, the exclusive economic zone or the continental shelf.

Basically what I am saying is that they do not have to treat you with 'kid gloves' like most countries treat other countries. They won't hold back or care about protocol.

Unauthorized broadcasting from the high seas

1. All States shall cooperate in the suppression of unauthorized broadcasting from the high seas.

2. For the purposes of this Convention, "unauthorized broadcasting" means the transmission of sound radio or television broadcasts from a ship or installation on the high seas intended for reception by the general public contrary to international regulations, but excluding the transmission of distress calls.

3. Any person engaged in unauthorized broadcasting may be prosecuted before the court of:

1. the flag State of the ship;
2. the State of registry of the installation;
3. the State of which the person is a national;
4. any State where the transmissions can be received; or
5. any State where authorized radio communication is suffering interference.

4. On the high seas, a State having jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph3 may, in conformity with article110, arrest any person or ship engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and seize the broadcasting apparatus.

To read more, check out the UN's internation maritime law conference section at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/unclos/ closindx.htm

I quote:
1. Ships shall sail under the flag of one State only and, save in exceptional cases expressly provided for in international treaties or in this Convention, shall be subject to its exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas. Aship may not change its flag during a voyage or while in a port of call, save in the case of a real transfer of ownership or change of registry.
2. Aship which sails under the flags of two or more States, using them according to convenience, may not claim any of the nationalities in question with respect to any other State, and may be assimilated to a ship without nationality.

That is from section VII of the United Nations publication on the law of the sea. Check out the entire law archive at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/unclos/ closindx.htm

I quote:
1. Ships shall sail under the flag of one State only and, save in exceptional cases expressly provided for in international treaties or in this Convention, shall be subject to its exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas. Aship may not change its flag during a voyage or while in a port of call, save in the case of a real transfer of ownership or change of registry.
2. Aship which sails under the flags of two or more States, using them according to convenience, may not claim any of the nationalities in question with respect to any other State, and may be assimilated to a ship without nationality.

That is from section VII of the United Nations publication on the law of the sea. Check out the entire law archive at http://www.un.org/Depts/los/unclos/ closindx.htm

--

Is not it against human rights?
Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

What Article 29(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is saying is that the provisions of the Declaration (such as Article 19 on freedom of opinion and expression) can not be used as an excuse to violate the broader 'purposes and principles'... such as developing and implementing targeted and systematic ethnic hatred propaganda campaigns in order to cause conflicts or incitement to genocide.

Just as the defense "I was just following orders" doesn't apply in such situations, Article 29(3) ensures that "I was just exercising my rights in the Universal Declaration" can not be used as a justification for violating the rights of others.

Those purposes and principles are clearly and succinctly stated. I don't think they provide a general get-out clause.

UN Declaration of Human Rights

Article 19:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

She said a key objective of this seminar would be to prepare recommendations on international actions to counter racism on the Internet.

Also, the UN conference website (something Yahoo! did not include) has is a lot of stuff they plan addressing in three days, and anything relating to the internet seems to play a fairly minor role so far. Then again, they did say "Millenium" several times - that always seems to precede something inane relating to the Internet recently.

No, it's not. We do "donate" more of our resources than ANY other UN country. Who makes up a massive percentage of every "peacekeeping" force?

Eighty-five countries have contributed peace-keeping troops, the majority of whom are from third-world countries. Look at the list of current peacekeeping missions. The UN pays $1000 per soldier per month, which makes it a strong incentive for poorer countries to send troops for peacekeeping duty.

As for the dues, that is all bullshit. We were owed many times more than our UN dues by many other countries, debts that we chose to let go.

Most of this debt is subsidies for US industry and agriculture. The money often never even changes hands. You want 40 F-16s? No money? No problem - we can arrange a loan for you. The loan is announced with great fanfare. Dignitaries sign documents and shake hands before cameras. The F-16s get shipped a few months later. On the other hand, the US dues for 1999 are $298 million. With a population of 300 million, that's about $1 per citizen. Compared to that, the US spends $12 billion for ``foreign aid''. More than 50% of this goes to Israel and Egypt. Most of that money - you guessed it - ends up as a subsidy for the arms industry.

The government abuses the UN, bombs other countries, etc. The population (most that I know) say "Fuck the UN" stop bombing other countries every time Clinton needs to divert attention from a scandel, stop sending our kids to die...

I agree with you, but for different reasons! The UN has a role to play - preventing WWIII. The US, with its bullying of the UN after non-payment of dues to the tune of $1.5 billion, is subverting its authority. Here is the UN's take on the money issue. This was taken to another level after ramming the Yugoslavia operation down the UN's throat. Other nations are less likely to trust the ability of the UN to take an impartial(one not dictated by the USA) stand on any matter. Ergo, the UN loses legitimacy in the eyes of the world.

No, it's not. We do "donate" more of our resources than ANY other UN country. Who makes up a massive percentage of every "peacekeeping" force?

Eighty-five countries have contributed peace-keeping troops, the majority of whom are from third-world countries. Look at the list of current peacekeeping missions. The UN pays $1000 per soldier per month, which makes it a strong incentive for poorer countries to send troops for peacekeeping duty.

As for the dues, that is all bullshit. We were owed many times more than our UN dues by many other countries, debts that we chose to let go.

Most of this debt is subsidies for US industry and agriculture. The money often never even changes hands. You want 40 F-16s? No money? No problem - we can arrange a loan for you. The loan is announced with great fanfare. Dignitaries sign documents and shake hands before cameras. The F-16s get shipped a few months later. On the other hand, the US dues for 1999 are $298 million. With a population of 300 million, that's about $1 per citizen. Compared to that, the US spends $12 billion for ``foreign aid''. More than 50% of this goes to Israel and Egypt. Most of that money - you guessed it - ends up as a subsidy for the arms industry.

The government abuses the UN, bombs other countries, etc. The population (most that I know) say "Fuck the UN" stop bombing other countries every time Clinton needs to divert attention from a scandel, stop sending our kids to die...

I agree with you, but for different reasons! The UN has a role to play - preventing WWIII. The US, with its bullying of the UN after non-payment of dues to the tune of $1.5 billion, is subverting its authority. Here is the UN's take on the money issue. This was taken to another level after ramming the Yugoslavia operation down the UN's throat. Other nations are less likely to trust the ability of the UN to take an impartial(one not dictated by the USA) stand on any matter. Ergo, the UN loses legitimacy in the eyes of the world.

This sort of thing should be brought up with WIPO (the World Intellectual Property Organization) as well. It is one of the 16 specialized agencies of the United Nations system of organizations. This is exactly what WIPO is all about, and you can read this copy of the WIPO treaty which actually resides on the US Copyright Office's website.

This will allow not only the US, but other countries to be persuaded that things need to change. It sets the benchmark to follow.

Check out the treaty itself, and then check out the agreements the US made with it, and you'll see that there is still lacking by the US in what it agrees to. Note also that the treaty was created in 1996, and that things have changed dramatically in the last few years with respect to different types of media available, which now may or may not be covered by this treaty. (I haven't had the time to scour it myself).

What do ./ers think? Would you like to see international policy development undertaken by the United Nations towards developing international principles that would enhance the security of global information and telecommunications systems and help to combat information terrorism and criminality? Or is this something that the Internet Society should be doing? I note that Vint Cerf is promoting the idea of a Law of Cyberspace, similar to the existing United Nations Law of the Sea.

My feeling is that like it or not, future skirmishes will be fought on a digital battleground, and governments will need to cooperate to fight cyber-terrorism.

-- Paul Gillingwater

Hrm.. this reminds me of a certain Orwellian novel. (-; I've heard that there is only a 100M landline (~=100 T1's?) going into Australia, and other providers rely on sattelite service. I'm sure that if the ISPs are not willing to comply, the landline can be censored, but how could sattelite reception be monitored? Much more difficult. I forsee an onslought of All-Porn ISPs. Much more hardcore than the average Australian porn-viewer sees today.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Impart information through any media regardless of frontiers.

And I thought the CRTC was going overboard... (-;