Slashdot Mirror

The whole concept of teenagers was an invention. http://www.ushistory.org/us/46...

No, it's not. I take your article and raise you "Northanger Abbey", a book published in 1817 which more or less has the plot (heavily summarised) "teenagers are a bit silly".

How on earth would you think that is what refutes my referenced statement. If anything, it moves the dates backward. But regardless, if the living conditions were what they were back then, but we waited until what we consider appropriate, we'd go extinct in short order. People were in general dying off at the age that many consider proper for having children today.

Now how on earth could that be a thing if teenagers didn't even exist then?

You are woefully confused here. Your attempted refutation based on a word, simply does not negate the concept of extended childhood. Where once humans married shortly after puberty, and through the concept of teenagers - or if you find the word so offensive - extended childhood might salve your sensitive ears, there is no question at all that extended childhood exists.

There are even scientifically measurable brain changes that happen during adolescence.

All through life there are measurable changes in the brain. That in no way means that humans should wait until menopause to have children.

That is because there are years of peak fertility, and it is very difficult to bear children outside their physical boundaries.

Welcome to the real world. The real world is messy and fully of grey areas requiring a mixture of poorly applied rules and actual judgement. For example in this case it's often very clear when things are far over one side of the line. 5 years old? Definitely not ok. 50 years old? Definitely OK. Logarithmically interpolate (~16) and you run right into the middle of a grey area.

It's stark but ultimately it's like everything else. There's always a continum between "definitely fine" and "fuck no" and no matter where you draw the line problems abound.

I do not have an issue with obeying simple age limits described and implemented by the social mores that exist where I am at. Seems pretty simple to me.

It is very difficult to assign a certain age as the lower limit, but you have to.

14? Some young ladies have not even gone through puberty yet. There is a genetic relationship as well as a weight relationship. 16? Well, some young ladies have been fertile and sexually interested for 4 years already. 18? I suppose that might work, but the sex drive in both male and female is raging pretty hard by that time. So a country discusses and sets a lower limit, and you comply with it.

Disclaimer - I've always been attracted to women of a more mature outlook, which to me starts in most women in their mid 20's. Even when I was a teenager, I hung around the local college campus. High school girls were silly and pretty lame mentally.

If the law says something stupid it won't be obeyed and nor should it.

Meh. Sometimes the posted speed limit is stupid. Sometimes following the rules about recreational drugs like weed is stupid. You want to bang some 14 year old, go ahead, but don't come bitching if you end up in jail.

The whole concept of teenagers was an invention. http://www.ushistory.org/us/46...

No, it's not. I take your article and raise you "Northanger Abbey", a book published in 1817 which more or less has the plot (heavily summarised) "teenagers are a bit silly". Now how on earth could that be a thing if teenagers didn't even exist then?

Maybe the word teenager wasn't used, but adolescents exist, always have and always will. There are even scientifically measurable brain changes that happen during adolescence.

It's not limited to humans either. You can see the behaviour easily in social animals as well.

Who determines what this "magic age" is?

Welcome to the real world. The real world is messy and fully of grey areas requiring a mixture of poorly applied rules and actual judgement. For example in this case it's often very clear when things are far over one side of the line. 5 years old? Definitely not ok. 50 years old? Definitely OK. Logarithmically interpolate (~16) and you run right into the middle of a grey area.

It's stark but ultimately it's like everything else. There's always a continum between "definitely fine" and "fuck no" and no matter where you draw the line problems abound. But if you don't draw the line anywhere at all you have even worse problems.

My own thoughts on the matter is if the law says you don't boink a woman until after she is 100 years old, then you don't boink any women under 100.

If the law says something stupid it won't be obeyed and nor should it.

> Someone of the age of 16 is not fully developed.

Devils advocate: /sarcasm As opposed to someone who is 18 years old?

Who determines what this "magic age" is?

Young people will become mature at the age they are allowed to become mature. My grandparents were married at 13. My wife and I married shortly after she turned 18. Today, marriage is pressing the limits of female fertility.

The whole concept of teenagers was an invention. http://www.ushistory.org/us/46... It did make sense, but introduced a lot of complexities. Whereas once the evolution and survival of the species provided puberty and adulthood in the early teens, we sensibly stretched it some to allow for better education.

Now however, there are people who are agitating for adulthood to occur in the early 30s. 35 years old is considered a "young adult". I even saw a Ted talk by a woman claiming that women were biologically designed to start having children after 35 years old. Ironically, many women are freezing theieggs and have to go through fertility treatments at this age, and age when our ancestors were dying off.

My own thoughts on the matter is if the law says you don't boink a woman until after she is 100 years old, then you don't boink any women under 100.

ure, charging ones car into a mass of people because some one threatened you several blocks away is completely reasonable. Talk about willful naivete.

Running for your own life

More nonsense. There's nothing in the constitution that says you have the right to bear arms against your own government.

http://www.ushistory.org/decla...

Disingenuous much ? Or do you just expect everyone to be as ignorant ?

DUURRR, more stupid. Tell me, how am I lying when I say that?
. Show me the reputable source that cast doubts on them. All you're doing now is basically saying "Not uh, that's wrong because I say it is".

Your claim is that loose gun control laws in the U.S. are the cause of our murder rate
I showed
1. As our laws liberalized our murder and crime rate went down
2. Between areas within this country gun laws do not correlate with crime
3. Between similar cities with different gun control regimes there is no correlation in the amount of crime over time
4. Between extremes of gun control regimes across countries there is no correlation.

Your response is DURRR People that know more than you say otherwise despite the evidence to the contrary. This while referring to a science well known for being driven by politics.

https://www.scientificamerican...

You're either a liar or an idiot either way my points stand on their own.

Here in the U.S. we have a variety of basic freedoms recognized as things the government hasn't been given the power by the people to take away. Among those basic freedoms are the right to express our political views to other people, even if we want to spend our own money to amplify and express those views, and the right to petition our government officials, i.e. tell them what we want them to do for us.

Lobbyists are people the more organized among us hire to represent their interests in telling politicians what they want. Campaign donations are one of they ways we support the politicians we agree with and help them represent our interests and viewpoints in government.

Please stop advocating for taking away any of our basic liberties. We've been known to be willing to get violent to defend them from people who look like they've been taking them away.

Try a little history... Go back further than your pathetic little life span and open your eyes. Both parties have switched positions several times. Do you even know what the Know nothing party was ...

http://www.ushistory.org/gov/5... Political Parties
http://www.ushistory.org/gov/5... Campaign and Elections

Try a little history... Go back further than your pathetic little life span and open your eyes. Both parties have switched positions several times. Do you even know what the Know nothing party was ...

http://www.ushistory.org/gov/5... Political Parties
http://www.ushistory.org/gov/5... Campaign and Elections

I don't believe "anonymity" is included in the 1st Amendment.

It was essential to forming both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

And why do people automatically believe "anonymous" sources to be honest?
  Anonymous sources are just a good way of making shit up and not having to prove the veracity of your statements. It also provides reports and all media in general from libel charges.

The value of an anonymous source is that words can exist under their own weight. There is no appeal to authority for a claim made anonymously, and only fragile ad hominem attacks like the one you made. The words are worth what they are worth, no more, and only a fool insists less.

Not to mention the Egyptian caste system. More in-breeding within the ranks than fraternizing with the peasants.

What can you expect from a state settled by criminals? It's hard to find now in the history books, but Georgia was a penal colony early on.

Uhmm pretty much all the original colonies were settled by criminals. Georgia's particular crime was debtors

http://www.ushistory.org/us/5d...

So how much revolving debt are you carrying ?

the sticks and stones, aka name-calling

What? How are the sticks and the stones equivalent to name-calling?!

all "rights" are created by people

Nope. Emphasis mine:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Whoever it is, that created you in your belief-system, granted you your rights. It is, of course, convenient for Statists to pretend, that the government is the fount of rights instead — to make it easier to revoke them. But that's a road to tyranny — and a short one, too.

talking about a "war" on speech just confirms your bias.

I will not apologize for being biased towards liberty. The war on speech is very real, as I outlined, and has been fought before. For example:

Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

[citation needed]

Every wave of immigrants has been opposed on those same grounds. Pretending it was somehow different before is a problem.

Really ?

http://www.ushistory.org/march...

Joseph Plum Martin's Diary

What did you assume yours was the first literate generation ?

Anonymous political speech is just "Common Sense".

I think you may have been too subtle for Slashdot. So, FTFT.

Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death
Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional v

Technically, the acquisition of Hawaii was botched and it is not legally part of the United States. This may sound preposterous but it has been reported on. Essentially the United States to control of Hawaii in the same way that Russia took control of Crimea.

Almost, usually it's the last line in the article you read, it was annexed to stop the depression cheaper sugar caused.

Around 1893 "Without Presidential approval, marines stormed the islands, and the American minister to the islands raised the stars and stripes in Honolulu. The Queen was forced to abdicate, and the matter was left for Washington politicians to settle. "

"Hawaii remained a territory until granted statehood as the fiftieth state in 1959."

First hit, they are all the same http://www.ushistory.org/us/44...

Guam, Marshall Islands, Johnston Island, there are a lot of US territories, as you were referring to.

Interestingly, the document he is quoting was drafted without a "Sign Anonymously" option...

A reread is not a waste of time...
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/.

No, gun "owners" failed miserably in protecting Americans from their government. It doesn't matter anyway. The State maintains its control over violence regardless how many guns are in the hands of the people. I don't know if you've heard, but the government has fighter jets, tanks, rockets, gunships, and all sorts of materiel not available to the average Joe Shootemup.

Here you should hit this it might help

http://www.ushistory.org/textb...

But also to be helpful because I am all to aware of the giant blindspots people can have on this

Bush Jr to the right of Reagan
Bush: Medicare Part D , No Child Left Behind ,TARP
  If your reasoning is the conduct of the war on terror, You would have to conclude Obama is to the right of Reagan.

Oh BTW out of curiosity, If you were one of those people that reflexively shouted "Worst President Ever" how do you react to Obama's name at this point ? Seeing as he has managed to expand on every failure of the Bush administration,do more harm to the economy, and our foreign affairs status ?

Nixon to the right of Eike ?
Lets see Nixon took us off the gold standard, tried to implement wage and price controls, created the EPA.

Eisenhower, Balanced budget twice Kept government growth small.

So your trend is Eisenhower right of Nixon, Reagan is to the right of Nixon, and both Bushes

So I'll say to you what I said to the other poster. You should have a chat with whoever is doing your thinking for you.

Crime didn't go up in the "great depression", eh? Ok, since you "demand" sources (even though common-sense & 1/2 a century of life here has shown me otherwise)?? Here you go:

"The Great Depression brought a rapid rise in the crime rate as many unemployed workers resorted to petty theft to put food on the table." FROM -> http://www.ushistory.org/us/48...

HOWEVER: That's apparently not true, according to you though so, argue with that above & history!

I don't know what "sheltered world" you live in, but I'm in & have been in an inner urban environs all over the USA most of my life & I can tell you that it's worse than ever now than it ever was (especially in an economically depressed city I live in now) - cameras everywhere, & 10x as many police hired? Didn't stall it 1 bit... murder rate here in the last decade alone?? It's way, Way, WAY up...

THAT IS WHAT FOOLS LIKE YOU ('fine leaders in business & politics' example & REAL agenda, thievery) ARE CREATING.

By the way: Downmodding the last time I posted this you weasel (posting by ac now when you have a real account) http://developers.slashdot.org... ? It doesn't change a thing. Most here view below the bs "moderation system" 0 threshold. You lose.

APK

P.S.=> However/Again: We'll see. I already have based on what I noted. The more people learned about tech, the more online criminals we received for it. Pretty simple. Especially when they find not nearly as many jobs for programming out there due to the offshoring of jobs here in the USA... apk

He believed a revolution was coming.

There seemed to be no limit to greed. If docking wages would increase profits, it was done. If higher railroad rates put more gold in their coffers, it was done. How much was enough, Roosevelt wondered?

The only reasonable outcome is for government to take control of the infrastructure that is the backbone of the internet and build it out as they did with roads. This is not a communistic viewpoint as free travel spurs commerce while tolls inhibit it.

Crime didn't go up in the "great depression", eh? Ok, since you "demand" sources (even though common-sense & 1/2 a century of life here has shown me otherwise)?? Here you go:

"The Great Depression brought a rapid rise in the crime rate as many unemployed workers resorted to petty theft to put food on the table." FROM -> http://www.ushistory.org/us/48...

HOWEVER: That's apparently not true, according to you though so, argue with that above & history!

I don't know what "sheltered world" you live in, but I'm in & have been in an inner urban environs all over the USA most of my life & I can tell you that it's worse than ever now than it ever was (especially in an economically depressed city I live in now) - cameras everywhere, & 10x as many police hired? Didn't stall it 1 bit... murder rate here in the last decade alone?? It's way, Way, WAY up...

APK

P.S.=> However/Again: We'll see. I already have based on what I noted. The more people learned about tech, the more online criminals we received for it. Pretty simple. Especially when they find not nearly as many jobs for programming out there due to the offshoring of jobs here in the USA... apk

I wonder why the constitution ever had any power at all over the laws. Why did 9/11 bring such a change in our freedoms?

Bad shit has been going on since the very beginning. Remember the alien and sedition acts?

The difference with 9/11 is that computers made it scalable so they could do it to everyone and keep it relatively secret at the same time because computers don't blow whistles.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others. --Thomas Paine, Common Sense

That's propaganda. They have the form of Communism but not the function.

Ah, well then it's much like the US Government propaganda. We have a form of a Constitution, but none of the Rights.

Constitution defines what you are made of, what the government can do, their limits, which is not at all the same as defining your rights. The US Government does have a Constitution, but I'm not sure exactly WHICH rights you think that that automatically should come with?

Think about various people's rights in this country before the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, 26th amendments. http://www.ushistory.org/docum...

It's a constant evolution, and hard work. It always will be, and it always has been. The people who wrote the United states Constitution knew that, and since you said "we", YOU should know that.

Ah yes, the old AD&D days...Constitution. Yes, I recall. It has about as much weight these days as our actual Constitution. Been reduced to nothing more than a museum attraction really. Perhaps you'll visit it someday, unless there's been a mistake at TSA and you've been flagged as a terrorist and put on a no-fly list unbeknownst to you whatsoever. And while done completely by accident it is now basically impossible to reverse. Welcome to your new-and-improved rights. Please enjoy your semi-permanent stay.

But please, tell me again how our rights should wait around to be defined and guaranteed. Our founding fathers didn't feel it necessary, hence the purpose of referring to certain rights as inalienable in definition to ensure there was no ambiguity.

I'm not sure what evolution you are referring to, or what country you've been living in for last decade, but We the People have seen nothing but a constant erosion of our rights. If you fail to believe that, then try and grasp any semblance of privacy in your life anymore. Everything you do in life is tracked, monitored, and recorded. Ironically for most, there were no rights to really give up. Apathy stole them long ago.

But that's OK. Please keep convincing yourself that we need to work on this while spinning yarns about how the level of corruption isn't that bad...

Please remember to smile and wave when the drones fly over. They like to see you happy and complacent.

"The king's cheese is half wasted in parings; but no matter, 'tis made of the people's milk." - Ben Franklin

I wish Ben Franklin were in charge of government spending - either the federal government, or California's goverment (my state). We need someone with a sense of responsibility and planning ahead.

The people should KNOW they can't trust their government.

Fixed it for you. It is but Common Sense

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others."

Government is but a guard dog for society, if it can't be controlled it needs to be put down, before it consumes the sheeple. Be wary of wolves in shepherd's robes.

It is really a shame that the human race is not yet advanced enough for proper anarchy, nor will it be in our lifetimes.

"SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others." Thomas Paine Common Sense

There is no "good" in politics, only degrees of evil. Your implying that no one should vote?

"SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others."--Thomas Paine Common Sense

it is a government problem.

Government is a problem that has never been a solution to anything but other governments and the failures of society. In shrot, it is a self-propogating problem. It is merely a patch for the failures of society. The bigger the government the more screwed up society is and one condition mirrors the other. "That which governs the best governs the least." Therein true anarchy (anarchy being a purposely corrupted word as used today, much like "hacker" or "liberal" etc ) would be best, unfortunately the human race is not and may never be advanced enough to where they have no need or desire for governance, simply cause self-governance has become suffiicient for peaceful co-existance.

The US didn't form the USA just because they wanted a big government, they formed the USA to ward off Britain and other major governments from imposing their will and governance here one one city or state at a time. Thomas Paine's Common Sense was written and published, in part, to convince the colonists that it was necessary.

"SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others."--Some Common Sense

it is a government problem.

Government is a problem that has never been a solution to anything but other governments and the failures of society. In shrot, it is a self-propogating problem. It is merely a patch for the failures of society. The bigger the government the more screwed up society is and one condition mirrors the other. "That which governs the best governs the least." Therein true anarchy (anarchy being a purposely corrupted word as used today, much like "hacker" or "liberal" etc ) would be best, unfortunately the human race is not and may never be advanced enough to where they have no need or desire for governance, simply cause self-governance has become suffiicient for peaceful co-existance.

The US didn't form the USA just because they wanted a big government, they formed the USA to ward off Britain and other major governments from imposing their will and governance here one one city or state at a time. Thomas Paine's Common Sense was written and published, in part, to convince the colonists that it was necessary.

"SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others."--Some Common Sense

That is a core belief of the US government and to a slightly lesser extent the American people. It's been obvious since, and possibly before, the war of independence.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Roger Sherman, and John Livingston. June 28, 1776

That quote is an idealistic daydream. 'All men' in that context was only ever taken to cover white US citizens, not blacks, and not citizens of other countries. Were slaves between 1776 and 1865 somehow granted Liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Were Native American Indians?

That is a core belief of the US government and to a slightly lesser extent the American people. It's been obvious since, and possibly before, the war of independence.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Roger Sherman, and John Livingston. June 28, 1776

An old adage says "that which governs the best, governs the least and the closest to the people". That has been ignored by the porkers at the top and their supporters keeping them there, which of course are those profiting from the pork. The US Government needs weened from its aphabet soup pig slop.

"Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."--Thomas Paine, Common Sense

Way too much unnecessary evil coming out of Washington these days, elsewhere too.

"... the reason for everything must publicly appear. Every man is a proprietor in government, and considers it a necessary part of his business to understand. It concerns his interest, because it affects his property. He examines the cost, and compares it with the advantages; and above all, he does not adopt the slavish custom of following what in other governments are called LEADERS.

It can only be by blinding the understanding of man, and making him believe that government is some wonderful mysterious thing, that excessive revenues are obtained...."

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/rights/c2-03.htm

Government is born of incompetence, bribery is but an extension of the wants and needs that lead to the governance of society's failures. Such ideas are but Common Sense

"Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least."

If anyone has never read it they should at least read the portion linked above. There are links to its entirety at that link. The larger and more powerful government gets the greater the body of evidence of the failure of society. Bribery is but part of the means of diplomacy involved in compromise, some forms legal and others not, with the latter often veiled in the former.

The government is calling for a long, drawn-out process that would require individuals or small companies to travel to courts far away and engage in multiple hearings just to get their own property back.

Hey a mental red light went off again. It's a familiar one, so let's see.... Ah, here it is, in the Declaration of Independence:

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

Filed under the section under abuses that should not be tolerated, and a revolution fought instead... Interesting, especially because of this part prior to that:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

I'm not sure how long the people will be able to ignore their duty as USA citizens...
Here's a translation for the code savvy Slashdotters:
2012: IF ( Government + Control >= Depotism ) GOTO 1776;

Damn, this is the third time this week I've had to post this:
US Declaration of Independence:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

And how exactly do you propose to take up our duty to overthrow such oppressive governments? Sticks and Stones? No. That's why the 2nd. exists... There is no clause: "The Guns and Militias must be federally approved, funded and employed."
Also from the USDI -- This is the section near the end where the crimes against us is listed -- Things that should not be tolerated, and a revolution started instead.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

Laws reducing and limiting Copyright & Patent reform? Laws enabling photographing of police? Refused; while contrary laws benefiting corporate interests are passed with regularity.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

That's what corporations are allowed to do to us. See the Sony vs G.Hotz deal, they could have sued him where the alleged infringement was committed, but instead chose a court thousands of miles away.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

Who votes our federal Judges into power? Oh, that's right, they're appointed...

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

TSA, Homeland Security. Additionally, they don't eat out our substance by way of quartered troops, they do so via increased taxes.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

Just this past month the armed forces declared Julian Asange an enemy of the state. Protip: Only Congress is supposed to be able to do that.

And on the issue of trying to peacefully right the wrongs:

We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.

Ever tried to get a law changed? We have law making bodies, not law unmaking bodies. Jury Nullification is our defense -- The last jury I was on, the judge tossed all the potential jurors out to get a new batch because we all said we wouldn't be able to make our decision in accordance with the unjust law he quoted -- Thereby removing our only recourse against the unjust rule of law. I followed the case, it took 4 complete jury changes to get 12 people who would uphold that bogus law. Ever gone up against a cop in court? It's a mock trial at best. Very rarely when some truly heinous stuff goes down they'll get a slap on the wrist. Hell, two cops called a wrecker to tow my neighbor's car for being parked the wrong way. I video taped them DROPPING THE CAR on its side, totaling it. Later, the judge refused to ad

How does one gain being right or lawful? Since when is the law always right?

I'd rather be right and unlawful then lawful and wrong. History has many examples of injustice where people have upheld the law now matter how much suffering it caused mankind.

As I've pointed out before, that very sentiment was present in the Declaration of Independence.

Not allowing women to vote, Segregation (Jim Crow) -- These were laws. Slavery?! "3/5th of a vote" -- Yep, that used to be a law. Laws are not sometimes wrong, they're Frequently wrong.

Laws are really more like guidelines -- Representation of the current mindset of the general populous, laid down for a sane and safe society to exist. When the majority of society holds a law irrelevant it should be removed or you've got a Religion on your hands, not a Government. These terms were not the contract the people signed up for when they created this country and/or joined its union of states. I surely subscribed to no such constitution by way of birth. Allowing those few with money and power to hold the most sway means I was born into a form of slavery, what with all the restrictions of crossing the borders...

We have only law making bodies, no law-unmaking bodies. The current stagnation of law risks the government being in violation of the contract by which it was formed... The good news is that when push comes to shove we can just re-use the exact same Declaration of Independence -- The list of abuses suffered towards the end is nearly the same today as it was back then.

Unfortunately we in the developed countries that are in decline are not unhappy enough in large enough numbers to effectuate change at this time.

Unfortunate indeed. FTUSDI:

[...] whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

What's that they say of the cyclic nature of history? I put it to you that it's not enough to know history to avoid repeating it; We must also be mindful of it always. Otherwise, in the end there will be lots of, "sorry, but you leave us no choice" on both sides of the double edged sword of power.

I go further and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #84

Or even the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

Bonus points for reading political philosophy.

It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect - that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few.

-Thomas Paine

Google+ can fucking blow me. Apparently, unless you took your grade school American history in the US, you don't *get* what part anonymous speech, starting with Paine and Franklin, played in American history and what it means to Americans culturally and historically to be able to say what they want when they want the way they want using whatever literary or social devices they think will best serve their ends.

Google+ is a walled garden of another kind- a walled garden of people willing to submit their identities and their opportunity for free as in psychologically-socially-and-politically speech at any bunch of personalities who form themselves into the role of "service provider". These people are obsessed with the notion that the missing step in the Underwear Gnome chain is, "and then we make everyone give us their real identity !!".

You know what? My life means something to me, and and it's not going to be reduced, limited, attenuated or otherwise obstructed by the my failure to see today what implications someone's arbitrary demands can have on my tomorrow.

Essentially this turns the internet into a small town. People leave small towns and go to big cities for a lot of good reasons and one of those is to escape the gossipy nature of those places where your reputation gets fixed early on and stays forever. Sorry if you're stuck in the public spotlight forever and there's no escape for you, Google guys, but perhaps counting your billions will serve as some form of consolation.

Banning anonymous speech is culturally short-sighted, historically ignorant and politically incendiary. No one but professional loud mouths, professional opinionators, and tenured profs is going to offer a frank opinion on jack lest it be used against them in some unforseen way later in life.

But it's deeper than that. There's a reason Franklin and Paine published anonymously. Some things need to be said despite what people want to hear. Someone has to play Cassandra. It's hard enough finding the courage to tear yourself away from comforting illusions, adding onto that a tax most ordinary people literally have no way to bear- loss of a job, loss of friends, loss of opportunity- makes truth tellers, anonymous and otherwise, that much more unlikely to emerge. And this in a time when truth tellers are so desperately needed.

It's really just Common Sense http://www.ushistory.org/paine/commonsense/.

Too bad Google doesn't have much of that left.

But Americans have been hugely keen on giving more and more power to their federal government

Sigh. No. The ignorance of history by the average American is appalling. No, this is nothing new. It goes back to the 1798 Alien and Sedition acts, at least. There's nothing "more and more' about it-- you do remember the domestic spying of the 1960s and 1970s, right? Or the Kent State incident where National Guardsmen shot a bunch of students on the quad (who, as it turned out, didn't even have anything to do with the protests over which that the Guards had been called out?) Well, no, probably you don't. What is new is the large amount of push-back against giving power to the federal goverment.

There's been for the last two centuries a give and take between cries for security and the desire for non-interference; or, if you like, the battle between fear and freedom.

, so this is in inevitable byproduct. Of course there must be some government, but not one that grows without bound and attracts power hungry, corrupt authoritarians. But hey, keep on voting for those Republican and Democrats, because that's been working out so well thus far, amirite?

You're ignoring large amounts of debate and back-and-forth in order to phrase things as simple freedom-versus-evil. Even in the two-party system, the parties are not monoliths; opinions are not uniform nor black-and-white. However, if you don't like the two-party system, you might try to see if you can advocate changing the ballotting system that we currently have, which drives the politics to two parties. Try advocating approval voting, for example, which is a system that is not biased toward two parties: http://www.electology.org/approval-voting http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvote/center.html (or any of several other methods that don't fail badly with multiple candidates).

Allowing a government to go into debt is like everyone under that government handing some spoiled rich kids their credit cards in place of their rich parents cards and approving all expenditures with the spending caps removed. And sorry, bankruptcy don't clear government debt and/or child support. Enjoy your lives as wage slaves.

Government debt and taxation are key factors in inflation. So your paying for the debt but not paying it off, so still paying the interest and not really paying it off either. A crueler form of vigorish? Tax law legislators learned from the protection rackets of old, who learned from royalty and other governmental representatives as well as religious figures, sometimes in history they were the same.

US citizens have forgotten the warnings of Jefferson, Franklin and so many others. They have even lost their Common Sense . The more power given and/or allowed to government, the weaker society becomes. FDR said "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself!" Veiled warning? After all, government was using it against its citizens before, after and during his time.

Alas, US interests are everywhere and not meddling will harm those interests. The reality is that Egypt is most likely a lose/lose/lose situation for the US.

Hey look, kids! It's a colonialist. Can you say colonialist? It's a fancy word for a person who believes that only privileged nations deserve democracy, and power for it's own sake is legitimate. Yes, I know, it's a weird, racist/jingoist belief system, but that doesn't stop the idiots from keeping faith in it.

Yes, Johnny, it's quite ironic that Americans have become colonialists. Quite.

it's the danged preamble to the danged consitution

Is it?

John Hancock just rolled over in his grave, since he fought a war based on the belief that you don't pay for freedom.

I read that person's statement as satire, but maybe I'm giving him too much credit.

John Hancock just rolled over in his grave, since he fought a war based on the belief that you don't pay for freedom.

Hardly. I don't like censorship, and I wish the best of luck to those trying to change it. I just object to the implication that "actual crime" is defined by whatever the USA/Britain/EU/Australia/whoever culture claims is wrong, and that the cultural values of others don't matter.

All (to my knowledge) governments recognize Thailand's government. Likewise, my opinion is that it should be considered sovereign, and crime there is entirely what they want to define it as. Breathing's illegal? Okay. Breathing's now a crime. Being Jewish is illegal? Okay. Being Jewish is now a crime. Failure to salute the flag is illegal? Okay. That's a crime too. What gives us the right do decide what rights others should have?

Crime is determined by the government, which only stays in power by popular support. Rights are determined by society, which includes the government-supporting people. If people's support changes, then it's time for a regime change. Revolution isn't easy, but it's been done for the past several thousand years. As long as Thailand's government is in power, it may be assumed to have the support of the people. Not full support, but enough that there's no revolution quite yet.

From the American Declaration of Independence

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Consider these words carefully. The very first word "we" notes that these opinions are those of the authors. The authors believe the rights should be unalienable, but recognize that it is only their opinion. Further, that it is the government's job to protect the people's chosen rights, and the government only holds power while the people allow it. Finally, when a government is no longer serving its people, the people should revolt. Note that nowhere does it state the involvement of any foreign powers, or requiring the government be approved by anyone but the governed.

Yeah, no.

Our government was founded upon the concept that all laws apply equally to everyone. There is an interesting document expressing the intent of the Founding Fathers. As I recall, it says something like, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...", "...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men...", etc., etc. Maybe I'm just reading this through my idealist's mental filter, but it seems to me that the intent was not to replace a privileged class based upon lineage with a privileged class based upon wealth, but that's what we've created in the last 200 years. And that means something is definitely broken.