Slashdot Mirror
Taking Issue With The Outer Space Treaty
tekan writes: "The National Review has an interesting article about the challenges ahead for the settlement of Mars (or the Moon), as well as how Law and sovereignty issues factor into colonizing these bodies." Perhaps most interesting are the reasons cited for entering into the treaty at all -- which had little to do with keeping space a peaceful utopia.
Why can't we just colonize these planets for the good of mankind AS all of mankind. Why do we need more invisible lines in space?
You know, somone once said that you can't see national boundries from space, maybe that's something to think about...
Linux is dead.
LU
Here is the real point of the article. The author is yet another anti-UN zealot, and his entire attack on the treaty mentioned is a thinly veiled attack on that body. Personally, I think an UN-headed colony on Mars or the Moon would be a great way to go.
I think many folks aren't looking at the big picture. Being divided as we are on our own planet is one thing, but if we run into another intelligent species out there, we aren't going to be Americans or Germans or Japanese---we're going to be Earthlings. We need to figure out how to act as such.
Karma: Marginal (mostly due to the border around the website)
"It is widely agreed by space-law scholars that the Outer Space Treaty forbids only national sovereignty"
"space-law scholars"? -- Where can I go to get that degree? I'll put it next to my diplomas for "rocket sociologist" and "atomic dentist".
Best Windows Freeware
If we want to colonize space, and colonize it fast, the way to do that is to create viable land titles on the Moon, Mars, and any other body people want to live on. The value generated by making those title transferable at a distance ("the miracle of capital") will be more that sufficient to fund the trips to those places.
The Economic Viability of Mars Colonization
As to all those people who believe that "the world" should own space locations, and keep them as parks, or Utopias - that will be the easiest way to ensure that they remain completely unused by humanity, until it's *super* easy, whereupon those places will become slums and shanty towns, just like the unpropertied areas in third world countries today.
Websurfing done right! StumbleUpon
augment your senses: http://sensebridge.net/
It's interesting to think about how future colonists will view Earth, especially the first generation of humans not born on the home planet.
My guess is that many of the same tensions that pushed the 13 Colonies against England in 1776, as well as countless similar political situations before and since will come to bear again. The issue of sovereignty over space will be more or less moot to Earthbound nations. They will go into space, eventually find something they like, gain self-sufficiency, and eventually lose interest in restrictive relationships with Earth.
I am hereby notifying everyone that I am patenting colonization on the moon and mars. i believe there has been no prior art.
I would expect the US, China, Europe, Japan, India, and maybe others to each have their own "colonies" on Mars, for a while. But then cultural trends would start pushing these colonies to band together, and eventually declare independence from any and all Earth nations. They'd have much more in common with each other than each colony would have with its mother nation, after all (2/5 gravity, food scarcity, etc.).
Then there's the communications gap. Absolute minimum of, I forget, 20 minutes round trip to get a response from Earth? Going up to 40 minutes? Not a huuuge gap, but it's there.
The main thing tying Martian colonies to Earth would be dependence on resources and infrastructure - heavy machinery, for instance - until the means exists to produce it locally. But that would just be a matter of time.
In short, humans, by nature, will band together where convenient, and declare independence when convenient as well.
Lately democracy seems to be based on the skybox, the Happy Meal box, the X-box, and the idiot box.
From what I learned, there is a large body of national and international law about space that rests on this treaty and a few others (space liability, rescue and return, etc.) and throwing this one out is unlikely. But, these treaties do have a fundamental problem in not providing any mechanism for private property rights in space, nor particularly envisioning any sort of settlement process. There are a large number of ideas for how to fix this - Alan Wasser's proposals mentioned in the article are one of them. There's also Declan O'Donnell's United Societies in Space that advocates extending common law rules to outer space, and of course there's the Lunar Embassy that's taking advantage of the current ambiguities to sell property on the Moon and other bodies.
What's needed is a push from the US State Department to get these things resolved - there are apparently individuals there who would know what to do to get a new treaty worked out or current treaties amended, but there's been absolutely no support from higher up for it. Write your congressmen or directly to the State Dept. to express your views if you feel a legal property regime for outer space is important!
Energy: time to change the picture.
The gist of the article is, simply, that since our promise is no longer in our interest, we should renounce it. Truly, there nothing new under the sun (see our gov'ts long history of abrogating treaties with various indigenous Nations).
More explicitly, the thinking seems to be that now that there's no danger of the Rooskies forcing us to spend terabucks in a race to establish sovereignty over the moon and planets, we should go ahead and lay claim to them. After all, who's gonna challenge our claim? The Russians are broke and the Chinese space program is still embryonic.
This is the logic of hegemony, nothing more.
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
As far as I'm concerned, Bush has a horrible record as far as treaties go (KYOTO anyone?)
You are wrong, Kyoto was rejected (S. 98, 1997) by the Senate while Clinton was president. On top of that, the vote was 95-0. So to say that Bush alone is pushing for the rejection of Kyoto in the USA is wrong.
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
So they signed the treaty to raid the coffers of NASA and put that money to an Eartly use.
Now that we have signed it we have given up our "birthright"? Are we talking Manifest Destiny here?
Who said the USA has a right to be the sole colonizers the moon? I take comfort in the fact that we can't and other nations can't either.
While this long standing treaty may throw a wrench in the works of China's plans it will still keep the moon open to anyone who wants to visit, explore or settle. (that is if China wanted to Nationalize it's effort which isn't the case)
Space isn't for one group or another. Hell, I don't think the Earth is either but I'm usually alone in this thought.
What bothers me is below.
The Bush administration has shown that it is willing to reject politically correct international agreements which harm America's interests -- such as the recently repudiated agreement creating an International Criminal Court, and the ABM treaty. Given the Bush administration's commendable interest in favoring American interests over the opinions of the post-national bureaucrats and chattering classes, the Bush administration should revisit Article 2 of the Outer Space Treaty of 1967.
Commendable? What about everyone's interests? Now this is an issue of right vs. left. Many think the ABM treaty is a Good Thing, and I personally think the International Criminal Court is something that scares U.S. politicians because they create more international crime more than anyone else. The ABM treaty is more of, ICBM's vs. " The Shield".
So really this article is a front for reasons we should basically "take over" space? Not us as people but as a nation. Why is it a Good Thing to open the flood gates? You think wars are bad now, just wait.
I mean, many people think this planet is just becoming insane (like this post) but if you can't escape it then sheesh, why bother exploring space.
In Article 16, the Treaty specifically provides for states to withdraw from the treaty, by providing one-year advance notice. At the same time, the United States could announce that it would continue to adhere to the provisions of the treaty that still make sense, such as Article 4's prohibition of nuclear weapons in space.
Once again... we can just take from it what we want? Sounds like a treaty we signed with Native Americans to me.
It is time for President Bush to ensure that humanity's new frontier will enjoy constitutional freedom rather than U.N. despotism.
Oh, and it's on the table for everyone to see. The author of this article assumes that you want that "Constitutional Freedom". What if you don't? Let's look at John Walker Lindh. A boy who appeared to have his mind set on leaving the USA and going after the fundamentalist life he wanted. But even though he went half way around the world he was still trapped under U.S. law.
What do you have to do? Walter Williams wrote that every law on the books is a attack on our freedoms. In his last article it ends; "Governments are not only the enemy of personal libery but of economic prosperity as well". How true.
Maybe they just want to insure you can't defect to Mars and not pay that precious tax. What if I want to smoke pot on Mars? The list can go on for years...
Pax Americanus I say...
Get your Unix fortune now!
...let's screw everything, antagonize everybody and unilaterally proclaim US sovereignity on a bunch of planets? What about proclaiming it on something where Americans ever stepped on? Or how about proclaiming it on unexplored areas of the planets? There is an american piece of junk on Mars => let's claim the whole Mars as an US territory! And why end with planets, US can claim that it owns the sun, Asteroid belt, all the space within Solar system (except one that is filled by other countries on Earth)? Or just claim the whole galaxy?
The point is, no one gives a shit who and why signed a treaty, it was and still is a right thing to do, and if US government will try to bite everything in its reach, they may find not only that they won't be able to chew it but that everyone else will be happy to help them to choke.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
The US is a signatory to treaties which prohibit the use of nuclear devices outside the atmosphere. While originally intended to prevent further nuclear bomb testing in orbit (which would have disastrous effects on todays world), it has also limited legit research into technologies like NERVA.
NERVA rockets (which use a reactor to superheat hydrogen for propulsion, at much higher efficiency levels than chemical rockets) are the key to exploration and exploitation of the Solar System. Our chemical rockets have hit peaks of efficiency limited by the physics of combustion that are not surmountable, and they fall far short of the ISP (a measure of efficiency and power) needed for manned exploration of our neighborhood.
The US should either formally leave these treaties or push for amendements to exclude limits on peaceful use of nuclear propulsion.
Do you think that if humans go out into space there will suddenly become more noble creatures? They will be the same humans that we have here on earth, and act the same way. You must be a fan of Star Trek, where it appears that they have found a way to rip testosterone from males and whatever makes women so bitchy and catty. If I had to pick any thing that would be a good representation, it would be something like Babylon 5, where politics and greed are readly apparent.
At least according to "Harry Covert":
File #2: A Martian Chronicle
This guy ties together two interesting ideas: the fact that humans appear to have evolved through an "aquatic ape" stage, and the particular gravitational conditions of Mars.
We should also note the recently discovered vast amounts of water on Mars.
Under Bush's National Missile defense system, he never ruled out using a space based system, including some sort of laser platforms. So then we have weapons of mass destruction in outer space.
Hmmm. You must have some knowledge about space platforms that the rest of us lack. I seem to recall since Reagan's time, every President has backed some kind of national missile defense. The lasers on space platforms are designed to knock down airborne missiles, not blast people on the ground. Basically, it's like saying that you won't raise a hand to defend yourself. Check it out. Blocking a punch is a lot different than throwing one.
The outer space treaty is basis for the outer space policy of the United Nations, and therefore of the 189 member states of the United Nations. But obviosly we know better than all of them.
We may not know better, but we (or any marginally free country) is at least as good as a body of unelected representatives who want the world to work for them.
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
full of shit. A summary read of his article shows the main point to be a further continuation of US ultra-right-wing isolationist hysteria. Describing the United Nations as a "collection of dictatorships" should be a first clue.
He fails to show any _good_ reason to dump the treaty - other than "it was pushed by the state department to further their own interests" (such as helping smooth relationships between US and USSR), and "UN==the Devil!!!!!!!" (ho-hum, again) So this, er, moron, would rather toss out a treaty which thus far has prevented the earth from being encircled by orbital weapons platforms? Is he smoking crack?
Nope. I personally think that anyone who goes through all the trouble and considerable risk of travelling to another celestial body should be able to do so without being fettered with the need to claim that land in the name of some obsolete notion of political division. Read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein some time. It will point out some pretty good reasons why nationalizing a faraway celestial body is a bad idea.
political_news.c: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type
And I would add that there are very good reasons Kyoto was rejected.
For one thing, it doesn't go after any polluting countries. China, India, Mexico and the rest of the Third World, the industries of which do not have the same kind of environmental regulations that we have in the USA and the West, are all exempt from any pollution reduction requirements of the the treaty.
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
Almost no one else ratified it? Hahaha, you have been brainwashed by the US corporate education system (unless you're a troll... but your ignorant views seems fairly consistent in your user history.) Actually 73 countries have ratified it so far. Japan did so today. And all 15 EU states have ratified it as well. Which countries were you thinking of that haven't signed it?
while not placing any restrictions on those nations using the most pollution-heavy technologies
What, you mean the US?
Europe loves the idea of the US signing, because they don't manufacture much anymore anyway
Are you trolling or are you just stupid?
for a US economy which is producing less pollution every year anyway, the treaty offers nothing
TThat's news to me. Care to share your source?
I'd have thought that colonies, once they are of the size to sustain civilian populations (as opposed to being just researchers and scientists) would want to form their own government and laws, as opposed to being ruled by a bunch of `foreign' (alien?) beaurocrats.
Yeah, they might base their laws (and constitution?) on that of the US, cos it seems a pretty good starting place, but to be ruled by a far off land, and have to pay federal income taxes to a place tens of millions of miles away? Come on, you Americans must be in a uniquely qualified position to know that colonies don't like to do that!
K.
Why doesn't the gene pool have a life guard?
And I would add that there are very good reasons Kyoto was rejected. Have you noticed that almost no one else ratified it either? (Yes, the EU did, but this means nothing without the member states signing on, and none of them have done so or even expressed an intention to do so).
You are not up to date. The 15 countries of the EU just ratified the Kyoto Protocol a few days ago.
Now, we don't have such things as governments listening to our calls, emails or such (yet, of course they might come, must be awake) without court order. DMCA, Patriot Act, you know, you read Slashdot.
Slashdot is a pretty misinformed place, slashdot is sensationalism to further an agenda, slashdot is not unbiased reporting, slashdot is the nerd equivalent of the trash tabloid.
Regarding rights: there is still judicial approval of evidence gathered against a U.S. citizen. The rules of evidence required to convict a U.S. citizen still exist. You confuse the rules used to stop an act of terrorism with the rules to convict, they are different.
Let say America withdraws from the Outer Space Treaty. In 20 years, 95% of mars is controlled by America. The only way that this can be seen as good is if you are looking at it with the view that america is superior to every other nation there is. We may be richer, but it is a far cry to call us superior. Then lets look at another provision of the treaty, no Weapons of Mass destruction in outer space. Under Bush's National Missile defense system, he never ruled out using a space based system, including some sort of laser platforms. So then we have weapons of mass destruction in outer space. Wonderful.
Well, first, that can only be seen as good if you are superior to all possible competitors. Right? So that means the US is superior to Russia (a good country with a lot of severe economic and social problems right now), China (a dictatorship whose foreign policy is mainly centered around conquering Taiwan), the European Union (where they are burning synagogues and where the government still suffers racism at home and mass killings in their back yard), and well, that's it. Interestingly, the nations most able to acquire territory in space are the ones who most deserve it. But if Syria wants to claim Ganymede, I say more power to them. If we want to stop them, we can launch an intercept from our Bush Naval Base on Ceres. (Your call if it stands for George W. Bush or Vannevar Bush) ;)
Anyway, the UN is an organization where every country has a vote. Most of them are dictatorships like Saudi Arabia, Cuba and North Korea. So how the UN is supposed to be representative of the interests of the people of the world is beyond me. Moreover, the reason you are allowed by the treaty to withdraw at any time with a year's notice is so that nations (say, ours) can decide that it is no longer in our interest to be signatories.
Since when is a laser a Weapon of Mass Destruction? It is not chemical, biological or nuclear, and does not do damage on the scale of any of these. It is in fact an exotic, but still conventional, weapon. In fact, the only military use you mention is in destroying nuclear weapons before they can detonate. How this is a tragedy if it is deployed is beyond me.
It doesn't matter why or for what reasons the treaty was accepted by AMERICANS. What matters is what it does. The outer space treaty is basis for the outer space policy of the United Nations, and therefore of the 189 member states of the United Nations. But obviosly we know better than all of them.
Yeah, actually we do. Or at least most of them. That's like saying that Iraq and North Korea outweigh the US because they are two nations and we are one. Neither are democracies, their total voting populations (let's see, the two nations put together have, TWO voters, while we have 300 million) are a fraction of ours.
As far as I'm concerned, Bush has a horrible record as far as treaties go (KYOTO anyone?), and I would not trust him to withdraw from the outerspace treaty and then be responsible.
Kyoto is another post, though it was the Senate that nearly unanimously voted it down, and as it stood it exempted most of the world except us and Europe. Bush's record is excellent; he just signed a treaty to integrate Russia with NATO (not membership, of course) so that the two can cooperate on security. He also withdrew from the ABM treaty so that we could work with Russia to build missile defense systems (they weren't happy of course because they can't expect to deploy a defense as fast as we can). How is it in our interest to put nukes in space if we abrogate the treaty? We can already destroy any nation in the world already... the only countries which would benefit don't have space programs.
Bottom line: we have every reason to withdraw and few not to. And those few can be fixed by policies (such as "no nuclear weapons in space" treaties) which can be signed in the year it takes to formally withdraw.
Because if Antarctica is the future of off-world activity, we might as well stay home. I don't necessarily think it's a bad policy for Antarctica, but if anyone intends to view the entire solar system as one big Rock Preserve, they deserve to be ignored. Exploitation of resources in space is a bold, beautiful, fantastic thing. But if no country can claim sovereignty of any piece of it, if no individual or corporation can stake a claim, than absolutely no one will waste money trying to get us this planet.
Actually he is. You just happened to never been abroad and fed propaganda the whole your life, so you have no way to compare those people and consequences of their actions.
You are ignorant. We don't have to go overseas to find opposition, to find dissent, to find pro-Hitler, pro-Stalin, pro-Mao, etc. perspectives. In short, we have access to all sides, even those we vehemently disagree with. I think you should consider that perhaps you have digested a little too much propaganda yourself, it is merely anti-U.S. propaganda, merely bullshit of a different color.
Oh no, it's FAR more logical to prevent private property ownership by those who can get something done.
Yeah, let's protect space as a free zone, so GHANA doesn't get cheated out of their fair opportunity that they will exercise in what....500 years?
Or wait, let's not commercially exploit space because we're evil capitalists since God knows that the Chinese or Indians or WHOEVER else gets up there (other than us) will be oh-so-altruistic and less self interested than the USA would ever be. I'm sure if they got there first, they would 'reserve a place for America' because, well, they are just nice & good & right & kind & warm & fuzzy, unlike cruel cold-hearted greedy militarist American gov't/megacorps.
This attitude (USA = bad, everyone else = good) is just the flip side of the same "noble savage" bullshit that leftists have been spouting for a century. If the USA is the only one who can make it to the moon, let the USA exploit the moon (every state who has been to the moon please raise your hands...oh, nobody else eh?).
-Styopa
Slow down there. You seem a tad bit rabid. The point is the treaty has a chilling effect on possible future colonization by ANY country. The US is just one country that might have an interest in seeing it go bye-bye. Personally, I don't see any reason why the US *should* stay in this treaty. It clearly, and legally, gives us a way out that would allow US citizens to claim land rights on these other bodies. Any other nation is welcome to join us, it's not like we are saying "Well, it's ALL ours now just because we can see it in the sky or land junk on it!" No, the point is that if you can establish a colony on another planet, those people should have the right to choose whatever form of government they wish, including becoming another US state should they desire it (or a member of the British Commonwealth, etc).
*Fortitudo, aequitas, fidelitas.*
Many of the countries where people are starving to death have been economically devastated by "free market" reforms demanded by the World Bank, such as the reduction of food import tariffs to levels far below those in the developed world, and forcing farmers to abandon food production in favour of cash crops for export.
It doesn't matter why or for what reasons the treaty was accepted by AMERICANS. What matters is what it does. The outer space treaty is basis for the outer space policy of the United Nations, and therefore of the 189 member states of the United Nations. But obviosly we know better than all of them.
Yeah, actually we do. Or at least most of them. That's like saying that Iraq and North Korea outweigh the US because they are two nations and we are one. Neither are democracies, their total voting populations (let's see, the two nations put together have, TWO voters, while we have 300 million) are a fraction of ours.
Remember that the real power in the UN is controlled by the five permanent members, three of which are long-standing democracies (excluding that little Vichy thing in the 40s), and one of which is a developing democracy (the Russian Federation). Also remember that there are countries like India (a democracy with four times the voting population of the US), Germany, Australia, and Canada in the UN.
Now that was one biased article. Let's see, we have UN slammed repeatedly, open source commie liberal trash berated, Bush looked up to for crapping on international treaties.. Almost good enough to be on /.! I especially enjoyed the part which equated foreign aid to funding kleptocracies. Personally I think much of the foreign aid is spent in ways that hurts the recipient nations more than helps them, but .. Hard to come up with something better.
Writer misses the point in any case. You need warships to claim a piece of soil as a private property. And as far as I know, US doesn't have spacegoing navy. Yet.
And lets not forget the damage that those Harvard economists did with the "opening" (read: looting) of the Russian economy.
One going on right now: peacekeeping in East Timor.
H.J. RES 1145 August 7, 1964, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution
There is no provision for the seperation of church and state in the Constitution. All it says is that the Congress may not establish a state religion. Giving money to a few hundred faith-based charities in no way establishes a state religion.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
This is simply incorrect. I'd suggest you look up the difference between `sign' and `ratify', and then go back and read your own article. 73 nations have signed the treaty, but far, far fewer have ratified it.
*Sigh* You know, you're rather amusingly wrong. Not only do I know the difference between ratifying and signing, I was correct: 73 nations have ratified the treaty. 84 have actually signed it. (Source.) It certainly makes your statement about almost no one having signed it look a bit stupid.
has no legal impact until they do so and enough other nations to make up 55% of the world's emissions do so
Which should be a formality, since Russia seems almost certain to sign it.
In comparison, many less developed nations, such as China, which make up a huge percentage of the world's emissions, are not even restricted by the treaty.
The US alone produces >36% of the world's CO2 emissions. China produces about half of that, and that's in absolute terms, not per capita. Obviously developing countries, since they produce a tiny percentage of the world's emissions are going to get more leeway under the treaty.
This article [jewishworldreview.com] is a good place to start.
Didn't read anything on that link about CO2 emissons. The fact remains that the US, by any reasonable measurement, is by far the world's biggest polluter.
*sigh*
The EU, as a whole, will have to reduce its emissions by comparison with the US by 8% compared with 1990 levels, one percentage point more than the 7% figure the US promised it would (and then went back on.)
And the US is responsible for 20% of CO2 emissions. Wiggle all you like, but that's higher, per country and per person, than any other country in the world. No, it's not "per-capita", but then gold bars, dollar bills, and pound notes don't generate CO2, so the per-capita argument is a load of tosh. You might just as well argue that people across the US are starving and food is plentiful in Somalia because, per capita, they eat less food anywhere else in the world!
KMSMA (WWBD?)
President Bush invented pop under ads?
At least initially, any such settlement will have VERY close ties to Earth, since there's a big need for initial funding (think private investors) and any complex supplies (computers, advanced materials, medicines) will NOT be locally manufactured for a long time. Enforcement of off-Earth issues relevant to Earth parties (such as returning investment dollars, settling property disputes) will be as easy as preventing the next supply ship from launching. It'll be a long time before any off-Earth settlement will be able to be fully self-sufficient; and it may never really happen.
Energy: time to change the picture.
Ah, so I'm all of a sudden less "free" if I pay more taxes?
You mention Finland and Norway for their progressive traffic ticket rates. Tell me, HOW is that trampling on my CIVIL RIGHTS that I pay higher fines if I make more money? The purpose of fines was, last time I checked, to serve as a deterrant from commiting an offense again. If you earn, say 20K USD per month, how much of a deterrant is it from speeding to pay a 100 USD fine? Same question, only now you earn 2K USD per month.
As for the restraint on the press you mention, I live in a country with the only restraint on the press that it DOESN'T print slander or any form of racist text. This is all according to the UN Human Rights declaration.
Screaming out racist remarks or slander IS NOT FREE SPEECH.
A few things stick out about this guy's commentary which make me think that he's basically a right-wing ideologue. First there's his approval of Bush pulling out of the ABM treaty. There's also his comments on foreign aid, although I actually agree with him that foreign aid was basically destructive. What he doesn't mention about this, is that we actually used foreign aid to further our interests, we were not simply giving handouts. We used food aid as a dumping ground for our surplus, often destroying third world farming economies by driving down food prices. Their governments were left dependent on our handouts, then we started attaching strings. (Bangladesh is an example.) Also, most of our foreign aid has gone to Israel, which is not a "kleptocracy," but they do spend it on weapons, I believe. What really got me, though, is his characterization of Texan independence. Texans did not "choose to associate themselves" with Mexico, they moved into Mexican territory. They were welcome there initially. However, they brought their slaves over, and slavery was illegal in Mexico. Later, Mexico had the power to come to Texas and actually enforce the laws that other Mexicans lived under; that is when Texans revolted.
Of course, there's also his characterization of the UN as a "self-serving collection of dictatorships." The UN's resolutions usually seem to me a pretty accurate reading of the world's opinion on matters. That he doesn't agree with the rest of the world does not mean that other countries are all self-serving dictatorships; particularly hypocritical when he seems to advocate a Hobbesian self-interested outlook to foreign policy. Seems to me that the right wing's problem with the UN is that it's not in their pocket.
In any case, though, the article is an interesting look at some issues of space exploration which have been largely overlooked. I don't see how we'll govern on the surface of Mars -- remember Thomas Paine? Also think about the possibility that an industrial collapse on Earth due to the exhaustion of fossil fuels would leave settlers stranded. What if they survived? There's a science fiction story there...
> It is curious that he refers to the UN as an
> "infamously corrupt and self-serving collection
> of dictatorships"; the last time I checked, the
> United States and the rest of the Western
> democracies were members of the UN as well.
Yes, the US is a member, along with the other semi free countries. And hopelessly outnumbered by barbarian children from the third world who have equal voting rights. If you think Somolia == Canada you are part of the problem demonstrated by the UN. And no I don't have a ready suggestion for a more realistic distribution of votes for the UN. Basically it is just a silly, but very dangerous, idea that needs to be eliminated.
Maybe in another 50-100 years the various regions will have equalized enough to consider the idea afresh. Until then regional organization will serve as international forums to hammer out needful treaties and such. NATO and OAS being the ones of interest for the US. Europe is rapidly collapsing into a single nationstate and will have completed that transition by the end of the 50-100 years I proposed. China will be in the same league or bigger by then. Assuming merger mania continues in the other parts of the world we would be left with at most a dozen mega states of roughly equal stature to form a new world over government that would have a better chance of success. Especially if republican notions happened to be in vogue at the time. Power divided and limited hozontally and vertically over so many layers and cultures would be kept in check for a bit while it absorbed all power to the top.
By then, with luck, we would have spread to the nearby bodies and those peoples would be ready to seceed and start their own governments free from the baggage from here on Earth. The cycle would begin again. Small nation states would form, eventually band together/be conquered, etc.
Because there really are two sorts of people. Those who can make it on their own and want only to be left alone to do it, and those sheep who crave a shepherd. The promise of unexplored territory is that it gives the first sort a place to go where there aren't yet any sheep needing to be protected from themselves.
Democrat delenda est
Do you have any evidence to back the stagnation theory up?
Again, do you have a source for this? I would suggest that America's manufacturing industry is relatively small. Most goods I come across in the US have been manufactured abroad. I drive a car made by Ford... in Canada; I have a TV (Philips) made in Mexico, my DVD player (Apex) and my VCR (Symphonic) were both made in China. My surround sound system (Kenwood) hails from Indonesia. There are no stickers on my furnature and I've thrown away the boxes, but I recall being surprised to see they were imports too. And it's not as if I'm going out of my way to chose foreign goods, I'm just getting what's looking like a good offer today.There are cars being manufactured somewhere in the US, to be fair, but in general industry in the US has declined and largely moved abroad anyway (assuming it was ever here.)
I would suggest to you that America is merely the least efficient user of energy in the world. It can afford, financially, to be inefficient, and so it is.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Come on neocon.
.... as your strange posts in this thread show: regarding UN and the position of the US regarding UN.
/. for a year at least.
...
or where what the poor have is increasing nearly so fast as it is in the US?
The poor in US gets poorer and poorer day by day and year by year. And the rich in US gets richer and richer day by day and year by year.
There is no singel country in the world where the gap between the poorest and the richest is THAT BIG and increasing that fast.
Its pathetic to argue that the poorest in the US has more than the poorest in Bangladesh.
You have simply no clue about the rest of the world
US is the country doing nothing for the rest of the world to get better in any way except exporting weapons to EVERYBODY who is not "communist".
The mess in Cuba is ONLY caused by the US, your mentioning of Cuba(in a differnt post in this thread) as a reason not to pay to UN or to abuse the veto power is the most zynical post I've seen on
It shows your absolute ignorance about what is going on and what are the historical reasons
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
hear hear!
clap clap! Good post, insightfull even (even if slightly wrong when US Senat rejected Kyoto, but right in respect to Bush's public statements to Kyoto).
To bad that a "we are amercican" moderator marked you as TROLL. So much to the most citated freedom in US: freedom of speach.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Probably you should go back some days and read the thread about Kyoto And EU ratification.
Germany is FAR AHEAD in the KYOTO goals and nearly has reached the end goal just after a few years allready.
Most European countries allready have noticeable results. And your ignorance about the american role regarding the CO2 emissions is jsut as ignorant as all your other posts, sorry to say that: but your attitude starts to suck big time.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
For one thing, it doesn't go after any polluting countries. China, India, Mexico and the rest of the Third World, the industries of which do not have the same kind of environmental regulations that we have in the USA and the West, are all exempt from any pollution reduction requirements of the the treaty.
According to easy to find resources in the net(hint: look up the thread some days ago about Koyto ratification in the EU):
part of world CO2 emission versus inhabitants
US 25%CO2 4% inhabitants
China 10%CO2 26% inhabitants
India 4%CO2 22% inhabitants
So, why should they REDUCE? Isn't it enough if they buy in new technology for their industrial growth wich is superior, if possible far superiour to their own currently existing technology?
Well, as the americans refuse to start crafting more efficient technologies I asume over the next 20 years China will buy in Europe.
I can not get how stupid and short sighted the states are regarding that.
Your argument: well, we are FIRST world, the best country of the world, but we do nothing as long as the THIRD and FOURTH world countries don't do as much as we do, is so stupid and so mean and so anti christian and so anti human, its unbeliveable that an adult human can be so cynical to even consider saying that.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
No, the US pollutes less per capita or per production than almost any other nation on Earth -- we just produce more than most. In comparison, many less developed nations, such as China, which make up a huge percentage of the world's emissions, are not even restricted by the treaty
Per capita the US has the highest CO2 emissions of the world.
CO2 wise its 30 times the emissions a Chinese does, about 50 times an Indian does and about 5 to 10 times an European does.
Hint: www.worldwatch.org, www.greenpeace.org
If you mean with "polution" waste, like heavy metals then you are likely right.
But thats no excuse for being the main climat threat and as such the main killer of the poor when floods, el ninhos, Hurrycanes and Taifuns kill the poor guys you are so superior about.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
There have been a number of democracies that the US has tried to topple, so that "friendlier" dictators could be placed in power. Our government tried to pull off a coup in Venezuela just a month or so ago. We also sell arms to countries like Turkey, even though they have a history of violentry oppressing their minorities and violating human rights. Not to mention giving economic preference to countries like China, despite their suppression of free speech and dentention of political dissidents. Shenannigans like that is what gives our "beacon of the free world" its hypocritical stench. The USA talks a good line when it wants to, but when it comes down to action, principles go right out the window and it's all about money.
You should fall on your knees and thank whatever god you answer to that it was the United States [...] Until you have a better solution, and can find the modicum of courage to offer it publicly, zip it "You Fucking Coward"
The above is an excellent example of the arrogance and ignorance that so many find offensive about Americans. I suggest you read up on what the US government is really doing before declaring it the saviour of the world... (here's a hint: your TV isn't giving you the whole story.)
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
EU?
... sorry, to tired to search longer.
The Nordic countires?
Australia?
Japan?
To bad I only found about 25 in 5 seconds
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
man you must be SICK.
...
5 8&cid=3640 311
/. discussion for simply any point neocon made and in that discussion US was the bad country.
... how much does it cost to studdy at Harvard or MIT?
So: my public bet, please moderate up and I make a second post to be moderated down for karma neutrality
The one who brings for this posting:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=336
for each point one single US case of similar implications gets $100 via pay pal or any other easy to use money transfer from europe.
I'm just to tired to search such stuff up but I remember to have seen a similar
Just as an easy hint: in no singel country you mentioned above was a single execution of a person since decades. I remember that even children of age of 12 get executed in the US for murder. Or for that matter just recently in Texas mind ill people with an IQ of an ape got executed.
You bring that stupid cases and claim this would restrict my freedom
I can visit ANY University in Europe FOR FREE. I gladly pay taxes for that.
My country reduced CO2 emissions about 19% allready in relation to 1990 emissions. I gladly pay energy taxes for that.
You are such a mindless clueless guy, it hurts to read your posts.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
yeah ... mod this down if you mod my bet above up.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Ok, ok. No.
While the Civil War was about the preservation of the Union, which is the United States of America - the secession of states and later the Confederacy wasn't about Despotism it was about slavery pure and simple.
The southern states wanted to dodge proposed federal laws which would make the act of slavery illegal.
(actually to a lesser extent the idea was kind of about federal tariffs, but the other states left because of slavery)
States rights == slavery
Get your Unix fortune now!
Hope you don't think BBC News is run by "Blustering Idiots". :-P
NERVA rockets (which use a reactor to superheat hydrogen for propulsion, at much higher efficiency levels than chemical rockets) are the key to exploration and exploitation of the Solar System. Our chemical rockets have hit peaks of efficiency limited by the physics of combustion that are not surmountable, and they fall far short of the ISP (a measure of efficiency and power) needed for manned exploration of our neighborhood.
NERVA rockets are not the only practical high-ISP drive by any stretch. As long as you have transit times of months or more, ion drives and other electric drives work fine, and give you even more Isp than NERVA (which is limited to exhaust temperatures that the engine core can withstand).
While you'd still need a nuclear plant for power production in the outer solar system, in the inner solar system solar powered ion or plasma drives work quite well.
NERVA *would* be useful for ground-to-orbit trips, as it can give enough thrust for more than 1g acceleration (unlike ion, plasma, and other exotics), but this isn't the bottleneck for exploration/colonization. Until spacecraft engineering becomes as well-understood and routine as, say, automobile engineering, any man-rated spacecraft you send up will cost enough to make launch costs insignificant.
Any construction that requires enough material for launch costs to be the dominant cost wouldn't be supplied from earth - the moon is a very convenient source of metals, glass, ceramics, etc, and I'm sure someone will point out that asteroidal material is fairly accessible as well.
In short, there isn't any application for which NERVA rockets are the only solution.
Property rights encompass a lot more than just claiming ownership of a region: mining for materials, proximity to relevant features or facilities - some rights will obviously be worth a lot more than others. Right now the ITU regulates geosynchronous orbital slots with internationally agreed-upon "property" rules - obviously geosynchronous orbit is closely tied to Earth itself, but similar issues would be there for any set of orbital parameters in high demand. Something like this is needed for the surfaces of the Moon and Mars, and for asteroids in their bulk in the relatively near term (well before 2050).
Energy: time to change the picture.
Cuba is a Communist dictatorship that denies its people voting rights, freedom, and engages in brutal opression. Oh, but all this is a "temporary" measure until the "enemies of the revolution" (who were infiltrated by the US) can be found out and exposed.
Naturally, such a country can only be a friend to the US!
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
The International Institute of Air and Space Law in Leiden has been around since 1986, and there are a number of others.
Given that the space economy is somewhere around the $100 billion/year mark these days (mostly communications satellites of course) there's plenty of room for lawyers to step in and help out. Who gets sued when a half-billion dollar satellite is blown up on the launch pad? Or when a rocket goes astray and destroys a warehouse or two? Who argues on your behalf with international bodies like the ITU, or helps you get your export permits to launch through the State Department's tough regulations? Even NASA has a bunch of lawyers on staff! Law is part of the world we live in, as much as science or technology. Just doesn't get much coverage on
Energy: time to change the picture.
Reagan wasn't shot for political purposes, he was shot by a madman.
Nice job tying Enron in there. Enron didn't have anything to do with tax fraud.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Joint Resolution
To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.
Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and
Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and
Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and
Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and
Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Uh, none? Journalists say it on a daily basis, and professors are free to teach whatever they want inside their own classroom, including bankrupt ideologies.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
how many beads would Mars cost us?
Evil is the money of root.
The funny part, for me at least, is years ago I worked at NSS and knew a number of folks mentioned in the article and bashed here on ./. Most of the NSS management were screaming liberals. Some of the NSS directors were liberals with a few libertarians thrown in for good measure.
I first heard this viewpoint aired at a NSS conference in 1991, so it's hardly a Bush thing or very new. At first, I thought the idea was nuts.
These years later, I'm convinced it is the only way we will ever settle space. Period. And in the end saves the human race.
When you toss away the idea of private ownership of property off planet Earth, you toss away any long term hope for the human race.
You put your own, bloody, mighty-high, liberal, barely hidden Marxist values in front of the very simple fact that we could be wiped out in six months by a chunk of rock.
You toss away the fact that unless we get off this rock, we will someday die. Might be a few billion years off, but it will happen.
Funny to think that there isn't a sysadmin, network designer or systems geek on slashdot that doesn't work everyday to make their network/systems/farms/whatever more redundant.
But you don't think a second about providing for a backup for our DNA and collected knowledge of the human race.
And if you think that someday, a Trek-like, UN, style world government will do the job, you are dreaming, have watched way too much Trek and don't really grasp human nature.
Europeans who bash this idea as a nationalist American plot fail to understand that the US is where it is today because of the private enterprise and the risks people will take with their money and their sweat to better themselves. If you don't like it, do what your ancestors did and stay home.
Liberal environmentalists who bash this idea really take the cake. The settlement of space is, in the end, the most likely savor of the Earth's resources. Why continue to tear up the Earth when most basic resources can be harvested from lifeless solar system bodies like the moon or NEA's?
Don't form an immediate opinion on this. Think about it real hard, and search yourself real deep before just tossing this to the side.
So, by your analogy, the richest man in the world is the free-est man in the world, the second-richest man, the second free-est etc...?
Well, you allow the government to declare that screaming "FIRE" in a crowded theatre is forbidden. Does that mean that you really don't have any freedom of speech at all?
Let's not forget that any form of freedom demands responsability. The more freedom you have, the more responsability you have as well.
Responsability for what/whom you may ask?
Yourself, your family and basically your own society as a whole.
Get back to me when Bush starts gassing entire ethic groups, the way Saddam did to the Marsh Arabs and the Kurds.
Saddam is now at the level of a large gang leader -- what he does may be evil, but it's not even in his power to cause harm comparable to what a leader of a large country can do.
Get back to me when Bush fucks up the economy so bad people have to resort to cannibalism to stay alive, as in North Korea.
Get back to me when Bush starts executing people just to provide organ transplants for government officials, as in China.
What, someone started an anti-communist version of National Enquirer? I really dislike communist governments' actions but those accusations are absolutely ridiculous.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
I'm not claiming that. Don't get me wrong. In the end the choice really is yours, after all you DO elect the legislative body of your country right? Unless there has been a very silent coup nobody knows about :). If you don't like the way the government is run you vote for someone who knows how to make it run better, if you don't know of anyone who knows how to do that you run for office yourself. If people like your way of running things chances are they'll vote for you, if not, then that's democracy for ya.
It often seems to me when I read discussion forums such as slashdot that Americans tend to think of the government as a big old monster that eats everything in its presence, when in fact it's composed of a bunch of political parties representing the general populace.
Or in layman's terms, they much prefer sitting in the darkness bitching and moaning about a dead lightbulb instead of getting their asses of the chair and changing it.
Pop Quiz- Would any major country allow the UN to intervene in it's domestic policy involuntarily? If they didn't want UN involvement, it wouldn't happen because nobody truly respects the UN as a soverign force and very few nations would be willing to give up their soverignty to the UN. Sure, the smaller dissenting members could be beaten into submission, but would larger members like the UK, USA, Russian Federation, France, China, Canada, etc, etc, secede authority to them? Say it with me: "Hell no." Basically, none of the UN's member countries actually respect the UN unless it's to their benefit. The only way to make the UN a potent force would be to give it total autonomous authority with a force that could do substantial damage to any of it's members. It would have to be a entity all it's own, it's peoples severing all ties of loyalty to their countries of origin and said countries would have to surrender their soverignty to the UN body. This is it's ultimate goal, but it's one that will never happen for the UN. Maybe in the far flung future under another organization, but the UN is a failure for the most part. As it is, the only countries it has lasting effects on are 3rd world heaps. It's true on Earth and space won't change that one bit.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
I have been to 37 other countries. I speak four languages and read/understand three more besides english. I have a masters in Political Science, with certificates from three universities in three other nations.
That identifies you as a propaganda worker.
If George W Bush is the anti-christ as you would have it, then about 2/3rds of the world leaders are the lowest demons in hades themselves.
And this is your tool -- twisting the opponents' words instead of providing arguments. Now go home.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
I've been around a great deal of the planet, between military time, and various jobs. **I**, as do more people than you realize, recognize propaganda, of ALL sorts, and file it accordingly in the nearest /dev/null equivalent.
Propaganda exists at different levels of sophistication and persistence -- recognizing all of it is a hard work. Primitive propaganda, or one that can be easily detected by a contrast to what is culturally acceptabke (usually taken from earlier times) often is used to create a contrast to more sophisticated, or more pervasive one, so sophisticated one will be harder to notice.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Of course they exist, they exist all western countries, they even have a word for it. Constitution. Therein lies the ground law which overrides every other law in the country and usually it takes a great deal of effort to make alterations in it. For example in my country (a wee island in the Atlantic called Iceland) it takes a major effort to change the constitution. The parliament MUST be dis-assembled before any changes are made to the constitution and the changes are voted on/off by the people. This usually coincides with the general parliamentary elections.
Now the asteroids, that's where the money's to be made!
Step One: Snag any handy Apollo asteroid.
Step Two: Mine the hell out of it! Drop the gold, iridium, platinum, and other insanely valuable materials down to the planet and sell it!
Step Three: Profit!
Dyolf Knip
Slashdot isn't a news site... It's editorials all the way. Some fact mixed in with a ass-ton of bias and opinion.
"Editorials for Nerds. Stuff that is 60% irrelevant, 30% biased, 10% matters."
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Many of the countries where people are starving to death have been economically devastated by "free market" reforms demanded by the World Bank, such as the reduction of food import tariffs to levels far below those in the developed world, and forcing farmers to abandon food production in favour of cash crops for export.
We hard-core capitalists would love to zero-fund the fscking morons at the IMF and World Bank, both of which are usually run by European socialists. It's one of the rare things the left and right agree on. See Forbes, National Review, etc. Damned if I know why we haven't done this.
These silly treaties are all about trust. I trust my competitor not launch a nuclear strike because niether of us have a nuclear missile defense. I won't take nuclear weapons into space because I trust my competitor to do the same and it would ruin the purely scientific and exploratory nature of space. I trust the neighborhood bully not to knock me silly while my back is to him because we both have fists and could seriously hurt one another. These treaties also hinge upon their signers being thinking, rational people capable of looking at the "correct" big picture, the correct big picture being peace in our time. Hitler signed lots of treaties. So did Stalin. Listen and listen good: YOU CAN NOT BASE YOUR COUNTRY'S SAFTEY AND SURVIVAL ON THE SUPPOSIVE GOODWILL OF THE COMPETITION. Your country. My country. This treaty and every one like it assumes everybody will play by the rules, nice and orderly. No punches below the belt, sir, Thank you. The "rules" are ALWAYS broken in war; If not in the first strike then in what follows. Why will Pakistan use nuclear weapons in a fight with India? Because they know they can't win a war by India's rule book. They've said so themsleves, India has a superior conventional force than us so the only way we can defend our soverignty is by going nuclear. The rules and treaties say that's a no-no. Watch them care as the enemy advances across their boarders. Watch them say "We're good and decent people. No nukes. Let them conquer us." These assnine treaties are oblivious to human nature and in the end they're going to cost more lives than they save because there are idiots in power and these morons don't care about your defunct treaties or feelings
You need a FREE iPod Nano
Why is a certain geographical spot a nation? Why can the people there say "this is our place and it's our right to claim this land"?
It's simple. It's theirs because they can protect it from others. When they can no longer, it wont be theirs anymore.
Will work for bandwidth
Answer: One. East Germany, which rejoined West Germany at the beginning of the 1990s. NO OTHER EU MEMBER IS IN WHOLE OR IN PART A FORMER MEMBER OF THE WARSAW PACT.
There's a nice list of members here. Just a reminder: The EU, as a whole, has agreed to an 8% reduction. The US originally agreed to a 7% reduction for itself. Methinks East Germany would have to completely shut down, its citizens evacuating to Poland, for that 1% extra reduction to be entirely due to it.
BTW, in what way is cleaning up Eastern Europe, including East Germany, cheaper than cleaning up the US?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
ie the countries he quoted have more rights, he didn't suggest they're utopias.
And you really didn't address The Netherlands, unless you're suggesting that Fortuyn was murdered by a government death squad. Are you suggesting that? That's a pretty serious allegation...
KMSMA (WWBD?)
So, why should they REDUCE?
But why shouldn't a "global" treaty apply to the entire globe uniformly? If we have to reduce our emissions by some ridiculous amount, why shouldn't the rest of the world have to reduce their's by the same amount?
And there's no way I believe those figures. Have you ever been to eastern Europe or to Mexico? There is so much smog, soot, and god knows what else in the air there... there is no way that the USA can be more polluted than those places. First hand observations overrule any statistic any day.
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
My country reduced CO2 emissions about 19% allready in relation to 1990 emissions. I gladly pay energy taxes for that.
Great. When you get DOWN to US levels of pollution, let us know.
I can visit ANY University in Europe FOR FREE. I gladly pay taxes for that.
So care to explain why so many students, internationally, strive to go to the top end US universities?
Besides which, if you want to start babbling like that, any kid in the state of Georgia can go to ANY college or university in the state for free (tuition wise). As long as they maintain their GPA. And that's without a cent of tax money.
that at Tianenmen square the protesters attacked the Chinese Army, and not vice versa (!),
You citate out of context.
Protesters did attack the army.
The army did attack protesters.
Both is true. (Oh shit I put the two sentences into the wrong order) Meanwhile I think I remember you are right. The students did not attack the tanks on the Tianenmen square, it was in the streets around the square. My bad that I was not precise enough in pointing that out. Seems I lost the discussion now and you are totaly right
Your narrow mindness is the problem.
Tibet 'monks' are restrikted in their work in Tibet. Especialy if they work political(not: I'm not talking about religion
Tibet citizens who are not monks can still follow their religion and even visit those monks and churches which are not subject of prosecution because the monks do not work political.
So: political working monks are prosecutred.
Religious intersted people(including monks) are not.
You simple mix up political activism with religious activism
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Your "response" raises another interesting point actually. Why did you ignore my question about the cost of cleaning up Eastern Europe? Why do you still think it's easy to clean up a toxic wasteland in grinding poverty, but hard to reduce US emissions, a country where people routinely change their car every three years, to give an example of how much manueverability it has.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
If you can come up with a link, I'll address the Netherlands example, for good or bad. A politician being "fined" can mean anything, depending on who was doing the fining and what exactly it was they did or said. In general, I'd say the Netherlands routinely proves that it is a more free country than the US, as its policies on what people do with their own bodies, be it drugs or prostitution or euthanasia constantly demonstrate.
The US currently has a million of its citizens in prison for non-violent drugs-related offenses. Those prisons are some of the worst in the western world. You're currently whining about a vague "fine" which, if actually done by a government under force of law will have breached the European Declaration on Human Rights anyway, and be remediable by the ECHR.
KMSMA (WWBD?)
Facts, man! Facts!
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
`Oh. Well if they are being tortured and jailed for their political views, not their religious views, it's ok then!' ? Really?
.... and he is free in his religion ...
No its not.
But torturing for political views does not affect religious freedom.
Hu? You still are intermixing stuff and try to lead me on the ice. Sorry, your way to discuss is wrong, seems you are a politician.
I did not talk about torturing and not if it is wrong or not, I talked about religious freedom. A totaly different topic.
If I come into a dispute with a muslime in a pub and we start a fight and I break his nose, what weas the reason? The fact that we came into a dispute? Or the fact that he was a muslime? Was it right to break his nose?
This are three questions and your answer allways is: "because he was a muslime he got broken his nose, so angel'o'sphere is an anti muslime".
As soon as I point out, "no I'm not an anti muslime, we had a dispute and it just evolved and it had happend the same way if he had been a christian", you say: "so, was it right to break his nose?"
The first question however was about his religion
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Why do those protective laws only apply to US citizens? If the laws are right and just, why don't they apply to any people falling under the jurisdiction of US law ?
Actually the laws nearly always cover all individuals within US territory, there are exceptions. The exceptions I am aware of tend to be related to rights you gave up in order to get into the US. For example a US citizen does not have to provide evidence that they are attending school, however a person visiting on a student visa would be required to do so.
And I'd like to see a real report, preferably Reuters or AP please, but a real newspaper will do, backing up your original allegation that politicians were fined by the legal system merely for criticising immigration policy. I suspect what we either have here are blatent, nasty, attacks on immigrants designed to whip up hatred, that a supporter has tried (successfully, sadly) to stir support from the American right wing by attempting to invoke the spectre of censorship.
No, the ECHR has done nothing of the sort. The ECJ has ruled that the EU is entitled to fire staff members who publicly criticise its policies. Not that that happens in America. There is mucho confusion in that Telegraph article, which isn't surprising because the Telegraph is one of a gaggle of British newspapers running an anti-EU campaign at the moment, and the British press have never been ones to let the facts get in the way of a good story, even if they look sillier for it.The European Court of Justice is a constitutional part of the European Union, as you could have seen by glancing at that link I gave you. The ECHR, OTOH, is an entirely independent body. It has nothing to do with the EU, and countries answerable to it are not necessarily EU members and vice versa. Read between the (hysterical) lines that follow in the Telegraph article and you find essentially a rather bizarre spin being put on a perfectly natural conclusion - that the EU doesn't have to employ anyone who actually is working against it.
It would certainly be interesting to see what actually happened in the case of the "fined politicians", your "similar" case, if similar, doesn't exactly paint them as sweet innocents who unfairly fell on the sword of political correctness, but of hatemongers. You do need a better source of news than Free Republic, and I wish I could point you at anything specific, but reading both The Independent and The Times should give you a slightly more balanced picture than you're used to.
And personally, given the choice between a country that has minor penalties for obvious hate speech, that doesn't feel that the use of drugs implies that you should be the target of rapists and thugs, and a country that thinks the opposite (except that the KKK does have restrictions, which ironically the oh-so-PC-and-bane-of-freepers-everywhere ACLU is regularly challenging) - well, no contest there.
KMSMA (WWBD?)
Ah .... you start to learn, fine.
... I mean cases where political freedom was restricted by court rulings and where religious freedom was restricted by court rulings. Both cases exist in germany plentifull. IMHO the court rulings where right(those I know about), BTW. I asume you would not agree with the court rulings in the US as it would show you that FREEDOM is a matter of point of view :-)
Yes, both are wrong and both exist in China, so we agree now.
Wonderfull. I hope you start to take a lession from that for your future live.
angel'o'sphere
P.S. yes, I still believe that your GENERAL claim is wrong. Your specific claim: "it exists" is something totaly different. Its up to you as a reader to find similar cases in USA for example
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Great. When you get DOWN to US levels of pollution, let us know.
Sorry, ten or 15 years ago I did not read
Europe is BELOW US levels since decades.
So care to explain why so many students, internationally, strive to go to the top end US universities?
I do not get that, sorry.
Why not? I would also go to MIT if it would benefit me
Why do thousands of studends form foreign countries come to germany, to france, to italy, to england from all over the world?
No idea, I think they like it.
So what was your point?
FYI: my point was about a previous post where a guy claimed that the high taxes in europe would constitute less freeedom than he has in the US.
I just liked to point out that I get something back for that "reduction" in freedom what he lacks.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
It's a fine line, and one which has to be ruled carefully, but whipping up hatred against groups of people based on arbitrary attributes which are not inherently anti-social does strike me as being as legimate to punish as, say, slander and libel which are merely more specific examples of the same laws. The US has laws governing the latter, and they've always been held to be constitutional. Indeed, the Supreme Court (or was it the Court of Appeals, I'll have to look it up) recently held that the Nuremberg Files website, which similarly promoted hate against doctors that perform abortions, was unconstitutional.
Whipping up hatred against specific groups can put those groups in physical danger, and can create an atmosphere in which members of those groups are unable to exercise their freedoms knowing that the very real threat of violence exists if they do so.
I'm not arguing that rules against hate speech should be carte-blanch. But the existance of rules against hate speech should not be seen as, by itself, a massive invasion of human rights unless those rules are disproportionate and used to silence speech which is clearly not inciteful.
All of which said, we currently do not have articles before us that explain exactly what these politicians, and indeed our homophobic priest, actually said, and who fined the former, so it's hard to comment on the specific examples.
And I'm telling you that the article is not a legimate interpretation of what the court ruled. You're reading a hysterical interpretation of what the EJC ruled, that conflicts with what it actually said. The fact that it confuses the ECHR with the ECJ by itself should be ringing alarm bells. In any case, the ECJ can rule what it wants, the ECHR trumps it in those countries that have signed up. Even if the ECJ had ruled that European citizens have the "right" to be denied access to conflicting opinions, the ECHR would never allow such a thing in the countries the ECHR covers.
A reasonable selection, though I avoid the Telegraph at the moment because its quality of news has deteriorated lately. As a liberal, I'm a Guardian reader, but I quite understand your dislike of it.
Generally speaking, the British Press runs to a different standard to the American Press, and that's putting it mildly. For all of its faults, the latter will generally not run anything unless it knows the facts to be true. The Press in Britain will put a spin on anything, and willingly distort news to reflect its editors particular viewpoint. And the supreme irony in this is that it's the British press that has the more obnoxious libel laws to put up with (guilty until proven innocent.)
KMSMA (WWBD?)
KMSMA (WWBD?)
You are plying the semantic games!
.... instead of accepting that you where exagerating in the first point you like to say: "angel'o'sphere if you deny 1, then you deny 2 as well and even 3 and wasn't 4 the worst sample in history?
Thats the problem and thats what leads to emoticaly heated discussions!
First you talked about "religious freedom", then you started to switch to "prosecution" then you switched over to labour camps then you bring up the Tianenmen Square masakres
I did not talk about 2, 3 and 4 in the first place, only about 1. But as you brought up 4 I dissagreed with you simplicistic view of it.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I think we had it allready 10 times:
With due respect, what are you claiming is exaggerated?
THIS:
The fact that there is no religious freedom in China
is no fact. I proofed it. And you are polemic in bringing up three other topics. And you are playing with semantics by trying to proove with three other topics that you are right in this topic. But you are WRONG in this topic. Period.
Yur discussion is disshonest and it helps no one here or in China that you talk disshonest.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I have posted copious documentation on the actual state of religious and political freedom in China in the thread I linked to above. I invite any readers curious about these matters to look there.
You only provided links to single cases.
And the conclusion that a single case shows that your general argument is valid, that conclusion is wrong.
You can not generalize from a singel case to all cases. You also can not generalize from 100 singel cases to all cases.
Thats the point. But I give up now as you obviously are not able to follow a simple argument.
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Actually, no, it is exactly a use of the privilege of the employer to choose who to hire. The employer is being allowed to fire "officials and agents who do not observe the duties and responsibilities implicit in the performance of their tasks."
...which is exactly what you'd expect. There is NOTHING whatsoever in that ruling that allows people to be sued, imprisoned, or in any other way challenged using the legal system for criticising the EU. Nothing.
KMSMA (WWBD?)