Citizens Demand To See Secret ACTA Treaty

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "One hundred groups of concerned citizens have united to demand a look at the secret ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) treaty and have drafted a letter to their representatives asking for information. We've discussed ACTA before, including what are believed to be parts of ACTA that lawmakers are trying to get a head start on."

Comments

ACTA?!

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

I like to know what my government is doing behind my back... I mean, I like to have more than a fleeting idea, anyways.

Re:ACTA?!

[deepershade]

I like to know what my government is doing behind my back Screwing you.

Re:ACTA?!

[Alien Being]

They're robbing you. Satisfied?

Re:ACTA?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I never do this, but you've made it too easy: "In Soviet Russia, government likes to know what you are doing behind its back!"

Re:ACTA?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ditto. Stop worrying about where taxation money goes and start realizing, "wait a second, they stole my money!"

Re:ACTA?!

[Anonymous Coward]

This government has forgot a basic precept, that we are citizens, not subjects.

That their power exists only so long as we grant it to them.

Re:ACTA?!

[Anonymous Coward]

I like to know what my government is doing behind my back

Screwing you.

Actually the government has gotten quite comfortable screwing you to your face.

Re:ACTA?!

[Spy der Mann]

Not only that, they stole your money to kill thousands of people in Iraq. And is that money coming back?

Hellooooooooooooooo crisis!

Re:ACTA?!

[mrsteveman1]

They still like it doggystyle though

Re:ACTA?!

[PC and Sony Fanboy]

technically, their power exists at this point (if you're american) until we take it away from them. Remember 2000? Nobody won, nobody was granted the power by the people. Unless by people, you mean the government appointed courts.

Re:ACTA?!

[Dekker3D]

someone call the thought police!

Re:ACTA?!

[foniksonik]

Uh... I'm thinking if all they wanted was to kill a few thousand people anywhere, it would have cost a lot less than the Billions of dollars spent on the Iraq project

Re:ACTA?!

[digitig]

That their power exists only so long as we grant it to them.

No, that power exists only so long as the media, large corporations and the rich grant it to them. As you'll discover if you try to take it away from them.

Remember, whoever you vote for, the government gets in.

Re:ACTA?!

[Lars T.]

Uh... I'm thinking if all they wanted was to kill a few thousand people anywhere, it would have cost a lot less than the Billions of dollars spent on the Iraq project

So they spend more than they had to - does that make it better?

Re:ACTA?!

[vlm]

This government has forgot a basic precept, that we are citizens, not subjects.

No, you're consumers, not citizens.

Re:ACTA?!

[Nullav]

And print it in the first place, and help maintain its value; it's worthless paper and linen if no one believes in it. It's also quite nice to have bridges that don't collapse (or roads that exist, for that matter). Yeah, they're 'stealing' it, but it's a hell of a lot better than bartering.

Re:ACTA?!

[Sun.Jedi]

That their power exists only so long as we grant it to them.

Which one of the two party choices do you think for a minute believes that horseshit?

Re:ACTA?!

[conlaw]

This government has forgot a basic precept, that we are citizens, not subjects.

That their power exists only so long as we grant it to them.

Okay, in November, there will be 435 Representatives and 33 or 34 Senators who are either up for re-election or endorsing someone to take their place. If we refuse to vote for any incumbent (or person sponsored by an incumbent), we can certainly shake things up, possibly even to the point that the new officeholders will recognize that they're working for US, not the lobbyists or the special interests in their states.

If this group doesn't get the point, we can do it again in two years, and keep it up at every election until we have representatives who recognize that it's their duty to represent the citizens.

Re:ACTA?!

[foniksonik]

your current sig sums up my response.

Brave New World, 1984

[hpycmprok]

Brave New World, 1984, Fahrenheit 451, Animal Farm, etc...

When I was in school (a while ago) these were books we had to read.

Seems most people 10, 15, or more years younger than myself haven't even heard of these stories.

Corporations are taking over the world. A well functioning democracy requires an educated populace.

Considering what public schools are turning out here in the US, so much of what happens in the world isn't surprising to me anymore.

I don't know what is more disturbing, the fact that so many people don't seem bothered by things like TFA, or that people aren't aware of them and/or don't understand them.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[esocid]

Just how old are you? I'm 23 and was required to read the latter two in school, and read 1984 on my own.
I think people are apathetic about stuff like this because they don't see how it affects them, and because they aren't aware and/or understand them. I'm aware of them and barely have a working knowledge of them. All I understand is that these corporate oligarchies are trying to perpetuate old systems that are still making them a$$loads of money by screwing over the consumer.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[garett_spencley]

What bothers me the most, and what I don't think most people understand / are aware of, is how international treaties can be signed, thus becoming laws which supersede the most supreme law of the country (constitution, charter, bill of rights etc.) all without public knowledge or involvement.

I think every single democratic country desperately needs to update their charters with clauses requiring that all international agreements be signed with public knowledge, consent and involvement and to clearly make available avenues for referendums so that the public can force their governments to withdraw if the majority of the population wishes (without replacing their government obviously).

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[JavaManJim]

I heartily agree there Brave New hpycmprok! Education in the USA has tanked. Too many otherwise good people are not completing high school. See the David Brooks editorial below (NyTimes registration required). A summary; the USA was fine and improving through 1970 then from 1975 to 1990 education graduation did not move. Other countries during that time moved ahead. The article is based on two books. Goldin and Katz http://www.amazon.com/Race-between-Education-Technology/dp/0674028678 "Schools, Skills, and Synapses" by Heckman (downloadable PDF) http://ftp.iza.org/dp3515.pdf "The Real Issue", David Brooks http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/opinion/29brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Finally people are not concerned about TFA because they a) shelter their knowledge by keeping within circles of limited curiosity. This means they don't care., b) as you said, could not comprehend its impacts. Best wishes oh wise one, Jim Burke

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[whoever57]

how international treaties can be signed, thus becoming laws which supersede the most supreme law of the country (constitution, charter, bill of rights etc.)

I believe that the Supremes ruled some (many?) years past that treaties cannot be used as an end-run around the constitution.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[wellingj]

When you say "Corporations are taking over the world", are you generalizing a bit, or do you really hate Capitalism, or do you have a better explanation for Corporations as the cause of the crap storm that is our future?

Please don't read this as a troll I'm just trying to understand your perspective on the matter.

Essentially you and I can agree on a number of things although I would add Atlas Shrugged to that list, and I would say "People who do not think are taking over the world."

I'm curious as to how far apart our view points are while still arriving at a similar estimation of the problem. That will be the true test of how bad it is.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Kjella]

A lot of (depressing) people have claimed that every civilization will devolve into some crappy hellhole, before people again will revolt and take back their rights for a short while. Though I'm not that glum, obviously those that have never had their rights threatened don't realize how valuable they are. Sure you learn about it in school but that's something that happen in places far, far away and not in the "civilized" world. My dad remembers WWII. I remember the Cold War. What do the youth of today remember? Sure there's been minor wars but not something that'd make your average teen worry.

Though there's been some amazing changes in the last century (Try predicting the current European Union in 1908, you'd be locked in an asylum) but human nature hasn't changed that much. I'm sure we'll see oppression and war again, and I'm not sure if the current democracies can stomach it. In the Korea, Vietnam and Iraq war the US was losing < 0.01% of their population put together but led to huge anti-war efforts. Even in WWII the US lost 400,000 compared to 5,000,000+ for Germany and 10,000,000+ for Russia, neither of which were very democratic at the time. Oh yeah and the French surrendered, though so did most of Europe so I wasn't looking to pick on the US. I'm just saying that when it gets tough and ugly it's easier for a dictator to command people around than for "the people" to draft itself and send itself off to the front lines.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Anonymous Coward]

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Of course, due ratification isn't really required, per se. The 1963 Vienna Treaty on Consular Relations provides quite specifically that a republic is bound by a treaty it signs but does not ratify, since international law could well break down under the strain of two hundred different ratification mechanisms. I admit, however, that this applies only to international law, and that a conflict between international and domestic law in the United States would be unlikely to successfully stand based purely on the tenets of the Vienna treaty.

Yes, treaties can be an end-run around the constitution; that's their point. A constitution that could not survive losing a war (and the negative treaty-based consequences thereof) would have been a big problem in the early days.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[cpt kangarooski]

In the US, at least, that's correct. The federal Constitution is supreme, with federal law and treaties at an equal level (where they conflict, the most recent trumps). All of those are superior to state constitutions, which are superior to state laws.

People often misread the Constitutional language indicating that treaties are superior to state constitutions, which is where the confusion arises.

This having been said, treaties are often used as an end-run around Congress. First, they're developed by the executive branch, which otherwise cannot write federal law at such a high level, and can be much more secretive and less receptive to the will of the people than Congress. Second, only the Senate is involved in ratification, and they cannot amend treaties, so it's a pure yes or no vote. Third, the Senate can be pressured into ratifying, on the basis that the US has committed to its treaty partners, after a diplomatic process that may have taken years, and shouldn't let them down at such a late stage. And fourth, if the treaty is not self-executing, Congress as a whole is pressured into enacting enabling legislation, lest we not be in compliance with the treaty.

It isn't good, but we're stuck with this system and its flaws, barring either a Constitutional amendment that would give Congress more of a diplomatic role, or the Congress (particularly the Senate) developing a spine and looking to the public interest.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah....But Diana Ross overrode them on it and put them in their place...Behind her!

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[MightyMartian]

The problem ultimately is that people in the West have become incredibly coddled. It's not that they trust governments more than they did in the past, it's just that they can't get out of their web browser, off the telephone to Aunt Mavis or turn off the TV long enough to give a shit about the nature of liberty and the need of vigilance. People may not always be happy to surrender personal responsibility to their governments, but they're too fucking lazy to realize that it's not themselves they're selling down the river, but rather their children and grandchildren, who will suffer the consequences much more severely than us.

Governments always have and always will tend towards tyranny. It is the nature of the species that we organize ourselves into dominance hierarchies, and that very fundamental encoded behavior is a powerful force. The Founding Fathers, along with many great minds of the Enlightenment, hoped to create societies and complimentary political systems that could overcome to some degree human nature, to create societies that could strive for freedom, justice and equality, where the least in society could at least dare to hope that they might be able to enjoy the liberties of the greatest.

But, sadly, America, like most of the West, is turning its back on the Enlightenment. We are rapidly becoming a civilization that will sell itself away bit by bit, giving away every hard-earned freedom for the promise of security (which, as even the most tyrannical regimes in history demonstrate, can never really be bought). So many believe the lies of the corporate-government oligarchies, not because the lies are believable, but because believing the lies is so much easier than the alternative, which involves using democracy to punish the liars.

And now look. Wall Street is melting down, and the liars are begging for aid from the catastrophe they caused. Where are the citizens, commanding their political servants, flexing their muscle, making the mighty tremble in their cracking ivory towers? No, much easier to let our betters do what's right, even though letting our betters do what's right has thus far lead to one of the most severe (if not the most severe) financial crises since 1929.

But that's alright, because a new television season is here, and the Feds will throw lots of money around, and it's Tuesday and I'm tired after picking the kids up from soccer practice, and I've got to get to work early tomorrow, and what can one vote do, and voting for a third party is throwing my vote way, and... and... and... and...

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Spy der Mann]

Brave New World, 1984, Fahrenheit 451, Animal Farm, etc...

When I was in school (a while ago) these were books we had to read.

Seems most people 10, 15, or more years younger than myself haven't even heard of these stories.

Nope, but they've watched V for Vendetta, the Matrix... and maybe Gattaca.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[NovaHorizon]

Hmm.. Seems you and the parent here (as most people are) are unaware that the United States is not and never was a democracy.

I demonstrate my point 1 one very simple exercise. Say the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

On top of that, democracies are bad.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
- Benjamin Franklin

Also, nothing the government does can supersede the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is not a declaration of what the people are allowed. It is a list to remind the government of what they cannot prevent. We made the Government, and gave it privileges. It can NOT infringe on the rights we have for being sovereign individuals. In fact...

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-- Thomas Jefferson

...

/rant

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Spy der Mann]

Corporations took over the world.

There, fixed it for ya.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Brave New World, 1984, Fahrenheit 451, Animal Farm, etc...

When I was in school (a while ago) these were books we had to read.

Ah, so that explains prevalence of the irrational fear of authority!

Schools forcing students to read a line up like that? That's not teaching free thought, that's institutionalising paranoia.

(A reminder to mods: discussions usually require two points of view. Otherwise no-one actually gets to learn anything.)

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Artraze]

Um... Most schools I'm aware of still teach at least one of the ones you listed, and most 2. The others usually show up on a list of books for something like a book report as homework across a break. The problem is far from a lack of education. It's a mix of stupid 'journalism' and apathy.

Just look at this year. You can't turn on the damn TV or open a newspaper or magazine, etc. without hearing about the presidential race. Every four years it's always the same old "get out the vote" BS, and the other three (and their primaries) are barely even reported, let alone discussed. People (that aren't totally out of it) know that congress passes the laws, and the laws are what actually affect you, but they just never seem to realize that means their congressmen matter, even more than the president. Sure, if, say, Jesus were to show up and appoint someone to the presidency who knew what the hell was going on and actually cared about the people and their rights, then the veto power could be used for some good, but I'm certainly not holding my breath.

The other problem is that people don't understand that the law isn't "The Law". They never realize that it's not some ancient black tome with gold letters that's been the sitting at SCOTUS for 200 years, but rather that it is a living reflection of their will. Most people just think that congress passes laws and they have to obey them. It's pathetic really, and primarily the result of the centralization of power at the federal level. (And at the state level for those powers the constitution expressly forbids the federal government from having. I'm looking at you drinking age!)

It used to be that the most power rested with the local government and the people would get together and decide how they wanted their community to run. That is why schools are run by local governments. They were set up by the community to teach kids what they thought they should know. Now we see massive pressure from the states to teach a precise curriculum and even more regulations on top of those. (e.g. public school is so damn expensive now because they are required to educate _everyone_ because it's apparently important to force children who are medically retarded through the same mold as those that aren't). Things like these make people feel powerless. The further up the power goes, the less their vote counts, and the more beholden to the higher-ups for funding for the regulations that are forced upon them (e.g. see above).

I was visiting a friend a couple months back and he warned me about a school zone (15MPH speed limit for those who don't know) they had just put in. Nothing on that road had changed in 20+ years, including the fact that it had no sidewalks, nor anything but forest opposite the school. But for some reason the township had recently declared it a school zone and stationed a police officer there. The result being high school students being hit with tickets for $200+ for going only 25MPH or so on a road that normal 35MPH. Nobody liked it, so I hold him to get together with a group of people and tell the commissioners something to the effect of "This is our community and if we don't want a school zone with camped out officer then we better not have one, and sure as hell better not be paying for one". I don't know if that ever happened, but regardless, it hasn't changed.

I've gone a bit far off the path, but the point is these are all things that reasonably intelligent (i.e. not on Jaywalking) people _know_, they just don't _understand_. The challenge is actually getting them to realize that _they_ are the solution and voting for the best turd sandwich every four years is not.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[node 3]

When you say "Corporations are taking over the world", are you generalizing a bit, or do you really hate Capitalism

I'm not the OP, but hating what Capitalism has wrought is not the same as hating Capitalism, just as hating your wife's lasagna is not the same as hating your wife.

Corporations, and Capitalism, have a very critical role in our world, but ruling the world is not their role. Corporations exist primarily (some would say solely, but I think that's too simplistic) to serve the interests of their shareholders, or owners. If Corporations were to rule the world, essentially, we would be taking the rulership away from The People, where it belongs, and giving it to the wealthy few.

So, for me, I don't hate Capitalism, but I do most definitely hate many of the things Capitalists have done.

The world is not so black-and-white.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[hpycmprok]

When you say "Corporations are taking over the world", are you generalizing a bit, or do you really hate Capitalism, or do you have a better explanation for Corporations as the cause of the crap storm that is our future?

I'd really love to say that I'm generalizing a bit. I'm not an expert, and it'd be better if I'm dead wrong. The tired cliché is 'follow the money'. Corporations act legally as individuals but with only the obligation to increase shareholder value. I don't hate capitalism. Historically it seems to have been good for the US (where I'm from) and for other parts of the world as well. But I think maybe it is getting out of control, with the legal invention of the corporation and how that legal device has evolved to where it is now. Corporations are global and transcend national boundaries. Corporations are able to merge and aquire each other. Branches of them are able to operate under umbrella companies, just consider Proctor and Gamble, to name one example off the top of my head. Or think about the entertainment industry... Time, Warner Bros., Netscape, AOL, how many entities that appear to be different are actually different branches of one company?

When that much power and money to becomes organized into a single entity, the influence over governments and politics is incredible. I've read many times that in our little war with Iraq, there are more private contractors over there than US troops. Halliburton scare anybody?

So to me, with what I have time to read, and am able to make of it, yes, it seems like corporations ARE taking over the world. (I know I should do my homework and post more links, but I need to go to bed, and somebody else can do it - for or against - if they want to).

If ACTA isn't corporations exerting global influence on nations for only the gain of corporations, at the loss of the individuals, etc. etc. etc. than I know I can't think of any better current examples.

Thanks for mentioning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_ShruggedAtlas Shrugged, I'll definitely go to the library and work those inter-library loan ladies. I admit I don't recall every hearing of it or reading it.

And I agree with you, people who don't think seem to be taking over the world. Or maybe, people have become sheep and think what they're told to think.

There are many other things people have said I'd like to jump in on but, it's late. I didn't mean to accidentally start a discussion. I promise to go back in my hole and lurk more.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a great point. I know at least of one country that lives by these principles... And I guess most of you would have guessed, Switzerland.

s_

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[digitalunity]

If only we could round up all the politicians and lobbyists in the same small area and convince them like lemmings to jump off a bridge...

I think a lot of things would improve.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Anonymous Coward]

In my high school Brave New World, 1984 and Animal Farm were all required reading, and I graduated in June.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[whoever57]

Yes, treaties can be an end-run around the constitution; that's their point.

I'm sorry, Mr. AC, but your interpretation of the constitution has no importance. All that matters is what the Supreme Court has to say

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[wellingj]

I didn't mean to accidentally start a discussion. I promise to go back in my hole and lurk more.

No need to apologize, in this day and age you should be congratulated.

I agree with you basic assessment of Corporations in the fact that they are more or less headless entities. They are a collective which is treated as an individual. If I had my way there would be no such thing as publicly owned companies. But that's my simple summation of it, and I realize it wouldn't solve everything, but when you can hang your ire on a single man, and that single man knows that the ire of some 300 million people is directed at him for the decisions he makes, and the decide who to give the money to every second of every day, it tends to put moral men in charge of the companies. First and foremost I'm a firm believer in individualism, so the idea that I would sell parts of any company I make to people I don't know really really bugs me.

But you have my vote for the sleep thing...

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Anonymous Coward]

People may not always be happy to surrender personal responsibility to their governments, but they're too fucking lazy to realize that it's not themselves they're selling down the river, but rather their children and grandchildren, who will suffer the consequences much more severely than us.

Actually, I think they are very aware that it's the grand kids that are gonna really get killed by all this. And I say that as someone without kids.

See the economics behind Social Security for an example. Say, when the oldest of our grand parents born...

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Anonymous Coward]

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

You're reading this wrong. Look: It's putting "the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof" in the same "supreme law of the land" category as the treaties and the constitution. Yet clearly this doesn't allow congress to pass any old law and supersede the constitution. What the quoted text is really referring to is to say that the US Constitution, constitutionally enacted federal laws and treaties trump state laws and constitutions. It doesn't say anything about the ranking within that category. More to the point, treaties still have to comply with the constitution. However, that doesn't mean they aren't dangerous: What treaties do is allow the federal government to enact laws normally outside the scope of its authority. A treaty can't violate the first amendment, but it can (for example) bring about copyright law that doesn't "promote the progress of science and useful arts."

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Rod Beauvex]

No, we need to start hanging them at the end of a rope again. When these clowns start seeing their wealthy Congress buddies hanging for taking a corporate bribe, they'll shape up. Quick.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Starlet Monroe]

This is the best thing I've ever read on Slashdot.

Thank you.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Anonymous Coward]

>and... and... and... and...

and I won't do anything except gripe about it on Slashdot.

Congratulations for the rant: Not only are you aware of the problem, you exemplify it, which is even worse.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[cpt kangarooski]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
- Benjamin Franklin

Of course, Franklin never actually said that. It's more likely from the late 20th century.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Waffle Iron]

Seems you and the parent here (as most people are) are unaware that the United States is not and never was a democracy.

Yes it is. It's a democratic republic.

No country in the history of civilization (including ancient Greece) has ever been a "pure democracy". Insisting on your kind of pedantry would make the word democracy completely useless.

Moreover, any country without a hereditary king is a republic, including Burma, Syria, Sadaam's Iraq, Mussolini's Italy, etc. So the word "republic" by itself doesn't mean much. Specifically, republic != liberty. The only way we've found to ensure liberty so far is to use a democratic republic.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Yvanhoe]

I agree on the referendum part, but today, when a treaty is signed, it is not automatically a law. It is a (usually presidential) agreement to pass a law in the country. Some treaties take a long time to be ratified. Some are even contested by successors.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[meringuoid]

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

To most of us, a republic is any state without a king or queen. China is a republic. So is North Korea. A democracy is any state where power derives from an electoral mandate from the mass population. China and North Korea, despite being republics, are not democracies. Britain and Canada, despite being democracies, are not republics. The USA is both a republic and a democracy.

This notion of a republic being mutually exclusive to a democracy is... weird. I only ever hear it from Americans. It's not just because of how you've named the two factions of the ruling party, is it?

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Wildclaw]

"A republic is one wolf and two lambs deciding what to have for dinner after the two lambs gave their votes to the wolf. Oh, and the wolf gets to have a gun while the lambs get pocket knifes." - Someone tired of people using catchy quotes that really aren't that special

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[dmn]

Considering what public schools are turning out here in the US, so much of what happens in the world isn't surprising to me anymore.

Ah, how stereotypical - US is THE WHOLE WORLD ;]

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[gzunk]

It really depends on whether the US wants the treaty or not as to whether anybody is pressured.

Take the current US/UK extradition treaty. This allows extradition with less proof than before. The UK has ratified it, and the US has used it to extradite a number of people with less than stellar evidence to back them up (Gary McKinnon, NatWest Three).

The US has not ratified it, and refuses to do so. Why? Because the Irish community in the US is afraid that Britain will use the treaty to extradite IRA fundraisers, and has put pressure on Senate / Congress not to ratify it.

So what does the UK do? Nothing. Takes it. Makes me ashamed to be British.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Anonymous Coward]

(A reminder to mods: discussions usually require two points of view. Otherwise no-one actually gets to learn anything.)

Oh whatever Mr. Flamebait.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[WoollyMittens]

Now you remind me yes. They made us read "Brave New World". Nobody I spoke to, who went to school after me, ever heard of it. Are we teaching our children to be complacent instead?

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Anonymous Coward]

underground eco -tax free
  corps - tax free (subsidized)
  gov't = tax free.

  hello, gunfodder... now try the secret ooxml-type unification treaties

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Teun]

It seems you have comprehension problem.

These books don't instil fear of authority but instead warn us for the abuse of authority.

Authority on it's own is not bad when you need to steer in a difficult sea. Through a democratic system we can assign, for a limited time, this authority to the one trusted by most.

When you'd be modded down it's likely not because of your point of view but instead for the lack of it.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[wrook]

I'm also not the parent, but here are some good links that will explain what many people are concerned about:

Capitalism which many people think is good.

Corporate Capitalism which cause some people to be a bit worried.

Corporatocracy which causes some people to be very worried.

Corporatism which a very large number of people find extremely worrisome.

Fascism which is considered to be a really, really bad idea by a very large number of people.

If you read through all of those links, ask yourself honestly where you feel that your country sits on the scale. The parent expresses concern. After reading these links, do you share their concern?

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Anonymous Coward]

On top of that, democracies are bad.

Democracy is not about choosing the best possible leader. Democracy is about convincing the loser that they lack the popular support necessary to take over via violent revolution.

Essentially, democracy is a method of avoiding civil war.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Indeed Mr coward. You are a coward. I have undeniable proof, since your name contains the word coward. QED.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[gantzm]

Yes it is. It's a democratic republic.

Actually it's a constitutional republic.

But nobody seem to bother with that old piece of paper these days.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Anonymous Coward]

In the USA, treaties DO NOT supersede the constitution (or its amendments). They do supersede all other laws.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America#Article_VI

Article Six establishes the Constitution, and the laws and treaties of the United States made in accordance with it, to be the supreme law of the land, and that "the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the laws or constitutions of any state notwithstanding." It also validates national debt created under the Articles of Confederation and requires that all federal and state legislators, officers, and judges take oaths or affirmations to support the Constitution. This means that the states' constitutions and laws should not conflict with the laws of the federal constitutionâ"and that in case of a conflict, state judges are legally bound to honor the federal laws and constitution over those of any state.

Article Six also states "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States".

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

These books don't instil fear of authority but instead warn us for the abuse of authority.

I see little difference in effect, if people insist on making the prevention of abuse of authority their number one priority. Sure it's all well and good to be aware of how authority can be abused, but all that anti-authoritarian literature forced on kids, well, it might explain the lack of moderation in some people's views.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice rant.

I think you're missing the fact that most of the middle-aged mini-van-driving populous of the US doesn't feel they are being oppressed. Yet.

If they did, you would know it.

Really, I would think this was pretty obvious, but hey, it's /. so why bother with rationality?

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[GooberToo]

My son is 18. He only read Animal Farm because the teacher gave extra credit for it and he needed it. By in large, those books are part of fewer and fewer people's education. The reason most often given is that the books are too old and therefore the student body can not relate to them. It smells of political agenda to me.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[neuromanc3r]

Just how old are you?

He's 16.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Danse]

But that's alright, because a new television season is here, and the Feds will throw lots of money around, and it's Tuesday and I'm tired after picking the kids up from soccer practice, and I've got to get to work early tomorrow, and what can one vote do, and voting for a third party is throwing my vote way, and... and... and... and...

Says the guy on the intarwebs. :) Seriously though, thanks to our ridiculous election system which is rigged to ensure that we only get two viable parties, voting for a third party isn't throwing your vote away, it's actually more like voting for the guy you can't stand, because he's ultimately the one that will likely win when the vote splits between the other two.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[GooberToo]

The article is based on two books.

The problem is the absolute failure of the "No Child Left Behind" policies. Kids are allowed to fail their classes and proceed to the next grade. This can continue for their entire school career so long as they pass a final minimal requirements test for each grade. Guess what, a large portion are unable to pass this test and drop out because they were never taught anything in the first place.

Teachers are no longer allowed to teach. They only give instruction on passing "No Child Left Behind" related tests. Critical thinking skills are not taught. Included in this vein is the lack of books, which were previously required mandatory reading and required teaching of critical thinking skills. By in large these books are disappearing from schools and continue to disappear at an ever increasing rate. It's sad.

Teachers are largely no longer allowed to teach phonetics. Vocabulary tests are focus an simple words often heard in every day language. These efforts are in place to allow students to focus on skills which they will use after school. This means students will not be able to understand most books. This means students will not be able to read or learn words which were not taught to them during high school. This also means fewer students are prepared for college and more students will either drop out of college or simply never enroll.

It is very difficult to imagine the state of US education is as such without someone wilfully determining the US population needs to be ignorant and dumb. The US education system works hard to create students who have limited vocabularies, can't sound out words, have no critical thinking skills, have little to no exposure to books which are critical of government, are unlikely to attend higher education, and anyone that has a brain should hide that fact or have it beat out of them on a daily basis; after all, sports are far more important. Hmmm...sounds like the perfect system to create slaves to me.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Anonymous Coward]

Democracy doesn't mean much either.
The People's Democratic Republic of China.. is.. anything but.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[mpe]

No country in the history of civilization (including ancient Greece) has ever been a "pure democracy". Insisting on your kind of pedantry would make the word democracy completely useless.

Actually it was Classical Athens. At the time there was no Greek nation state, instead various city states with various forms of government. The form of government used in Athens at the time was radically different from that currently in existance anywhere now though.

Moreover, any country without a hereditary king is a republic, including Burma, Syria, Sadaam's Iraq, Mussolini's Italy, etc.

There are plenty of forms of government which are neither Monarchies or Republics. There's at least one example of a Monarchy without a heredity Monarch.

The only way we've found to ensure liberty so far is to use a democratic republic.

Very often countries which call themselves "The Democratic Republic of Somewhere" arc actually dictatorships.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Waffle Iron]

The objective meaning of those words are not changed just because some countries incorrectly include them in their names.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[mpe]

If only we could round up all the politicians and lobbyists in the same small area and convince them like lemmings to jump off a bridge...
I think a lot of things would improve.

So long as it was a bridge over deep water and you made sure they were wearing heavy enough clothing that they wouldn't float. So there wouldn't be any mess to clean up afterwards.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Kelsen]

For years, I have patiently explained that there are two ways (there may be others, but I can't envision them) to have considerably better government.

The first consists of two rules; one, that we go back to the idea of the congress being a part-time job - these guys can't be in session for more than three months in any calendar year, max, barring a national emergency. Two, that all laws passed can have no rider of any sort; each law proposed and voted on in congress is a stand-alone law, and the record of how the various congressmen vote is immediately available to the public.

Now, this has no chance whatsoever of becoming reality.

The second method to better government is this:

1.) Line up every existing congressman, representative and senator, and publicly shoot them in the head.
2.) Elect a new batch (and they will run!)
3.) Line up every one of them, and publicly shoot them in the head.
4.) Elect a new batch (and they will run!)
5.) Line up every one of them, put a gun to their head, and say, "Now do the right thing, motherfucker."

You will have better government for up to six months.

This has almost the exact same chance of becoming reality as the first method.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." -- John Adams

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Anonymous Coward]

"Demo-cracy" (rule by all ten tribes) sounds a lot like what you have with the electoral college. If it was a "res-publica" (rule by the people) you would have a directly elected president.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[cbraescu1]

The problem ultimately is that people in the West have become incredibly coddled. It's not that they trust governments more than they did in the past, it's just that they can't get out of their web browser, off the telephone to Aunt Mavis or turn off the TV long enough to give a shit about the nature of liberty and the need of vigilance.

Unlike those freedom-loving, liberty-fired Chinese or Arabs or Thai?

Give me a break...

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[csartanis]

What, are you from FOX news? Discussions require pros and cons of every argument, not two viewpoints presented as equally valid. Just because you pulled some crap out of your backside doesn't make it automatically as relevant.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[MightyMartian]

The West seems to be heading in their direction more than they in ours. Cameras on the streets in London, phone calls being intercepted by shadowy Federal intelligence departments in Washington, secret treaties to further erode consumer and ultimately citizen's rights.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[bigstrat2003]

Seriously though, thanks to our ridiculous attitude towards elections, voting for a third party isn't throwing your vote away, it's actually more like voting for the guy you can't stand, because he's ultimately the one that will likely win when the vote splits between the other two.

Fixed. The myth that voting for a third party may as well be a vote for the major candidate you dislike is a lie, yet it continually gets propagated. If we could get people to stop fucking listening to it already, we might see people actually voting for who they want, instead of voting for "not that asshole".

I'm a dreamer, I know.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Danse]

Fixed. The myth that voting for a third party may as well be a vote for the major candidate you dislike is a lie, yet it continually gets propagated.

When and how was it fixed? If a third party joins the race and a third of Obama supporters decide to vote for him, then both he and Obama will lose to McCain. I don't see any fix for that. Without some sort of ranked voting system, we're always going to have these stupid situations that have people trading votes over the Internet and such.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[level_headed_midwest]

The "voting for a third party is throwing your vote away" bit only happens for *one* election cycle. If a third party gets a sixth of the vote, predominantly from Obama supporters as in your scenario, McCain will win in 2008 but it sure as hell sends a message to the Democrats that they would do well to adopt some of the policies championed by the third party. The presidential elections in the U.S. have been so close recently that even a candidate that gets a few percent of the vote will cause an impact on one of the two major parties' platforms, because that few percent would have been enough to allow for the losing party to have won, ESPECIALLY if the votes are in "swing states."

A ranked system would be better to have more parties in the fray, but third parties are certainly far from useless even in the winner-take-all type of election we have right now. It's just an indirect rather than direct method of altering the outcome.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[bigstrat2003]

I mean I fixed your statement. The only thing that props up our retarded system is the people that vote in it. If they would stop (falsely) believing that a) voting for a third party is a waste, and b) either major candidate is so much worse than the other, we might see some real change in this country.

Until then (and it may never happen, people are really stupid), all we'll have is politicians falsely promising us change. Business as usual.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[conlaw]

Nothing the government does can supersede the Bill of Rights.

If you believe that, then please explain how Bush and friends have been able to abrogate our rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth amendments on the ground that they're protecting us against terrorism.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Anonymous Coward]

what seems to be the real quote;

"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." ~ Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty (1994) James Bovard

And with a little extra research -- "lunch" was not a word commonly used in Franklin's time.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a nice quotation, but use the full one:

"What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

http://www.bartleby.com/66/10/30910.html

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Holi]

Actually it is a representative republic. but now we are just quibbiling on semantics.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Holi]

Umm, we let them.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Teun]

Come on! You know these are only a few of the required titles.

Among the rest there should be enough to make the balance.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[NeutronCowboy]

I wish there was a hall of fame for Slashdot posts. This would be in it.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[NeutronCowboy]

I normally hate empty replies of "ditto", but I have really nothing to contribute to your comment other than "Well said".

If there was a hall of fame for Slashdot posts, yours would be in it.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Danse]

A ranked system would be better to have more parties in the fray, but third parties are certainly far from useless even in the winner-take-all type of election we have right now. It's just an indirect rather than direct method of altering the outcome.

It's an indirect method that has the seriously bad side-effect of putting the person with the least popular policies in power for the next four years. I'd call that a deal-breaker, as would most people apparently, which is why third-parties get so much hate when they enter the race.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[NeutronCowboy]

Gah. I hate the new posting mechanism. Either I forget to hit Submit, and wonder where my post is, or I think I forgot to hit Submit, and double-post.

It's days like these where I'd like to have the ability to voluntarily mod my own posts down.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Danse]

If they would stop (falsely) believing that a) voting for a third party is a waste, and b) either major candidate is so much worse than the other, we might see some real change in this country.

Candidate #1 has 65% of the voters behind him. Candidate #2 has the remaining 35%. Now candidate #3 joins the race. He's similar to #1, and #1's supporters generally like him. So he manages to draw off half of Candidate #1's supporters. That means 65% would like to see either Candidate #1 or #3 elected, but Candidate #2, the one with the least support overall, will likely win.

You can't just vote your conscience, because it could have the side-effect of electing the person who most people think would be the worst choice. This is a dumb system. You can't blame the voters. They're forced into these stupid games by a poorly designed system. It's been long enough, the problem is recognized. It needs to be fixed.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Windrip]

Once again, pig-ignorance on... oh yeah...

We live (ostensibly) in a democratic republic. The words "democratic" and "republic" are orthogonal. The initials "USSR" are from what words class?

"Union of Soviet Socialist Republics"

Things you would have learned in school had you been paying attention.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Trillian_1138]

My sig has never seemed more appropriate!

-Trillian

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[DinDaddy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Water_Act

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, even more precisely, a constitutional federal republic.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[bhamlin]

just as hating your wife's lasagna is not the same as hating your wife.

Yeah, but good luck getting her to see it that way...

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[zetazentra]

I tried to follow your link: "The Websense category 'Militancy and Extremist' is filtered."

That's funny, every .mil domain for the US military I try works....

Liberty-lovers must be more militant and extremist than the US military. There's hope for us yet!

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Dog-Cow]

What do corporations and capitalism have to do with each other in this context? You can have either without the other.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[HTH NE1]

the United States is not and never was a democracy.

I demonstrate my point 1 one very simple exercise. Say the Pledge of Allegiance.

FYI, The Pledge of Allegiance didn't exist before Francis Bellamy wrote it August 1892. It originally read thus:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[GregNorc]

I was required to read 1894 or Brave New World my senior year of high school, the same with everyone in the state of Pennsylvania the same age. I doubt this has changed in 3 years.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Anonymous Coward]

All very well and true, except the current mammoth fiscal meltdown in the US is due to the stupidity of private companies who went in search of bigger profit margins.

In a nutshell:

1) Banks extend very low interest variable loans to people with questionable credit histories.
2) Interest rates go up, resulting in a rise in defaults among those with said questionable credit histories.
3) Economic downturn results in more defaults as people cannot afford to pay.

Which leads us to...

4) Banks are not Realtors. The homes they reposess are put on the market so they can recoup the losses on the loan.
5) With a large volume of homes on the market coupled to a sagging economy, prices drop due to excess of supply and low demand.
6. Banks start looking even worse financially as debts mount with little or no income to show for them
7. Said debt is refinanced as a mixed package of investments (the sale of debt obligations in financial markets is quite common. Similar to a store selling your unpaid account to a collection agency).
8. Said investments fail to return, introducing more threats to other banks.
9. The situation we're now in.

So, nice benifit of unregulated capitalism, eh? Same lack of regulatory oversight that gave the US Worldcom and Enron.

The obvious answer would have been for the corporations to keep an eye on their lending and not loan out money to credit risks. But that means they're not fulfilling a corp's primary goal to their shareholders IE Generate more money.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Anonymous Coward]

The closest peacable thing we've found so far to a way to ensure liberty is to use a constitutional democratic republic.

The only way to ensure liberty is arguably revolution, because all governments tend to accrete power.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Anonymous Coward]

If half of Candidate #1's support is so easily drawn away, his support is weak and he probably shouldn't win an election as a result. The fact that Candidate #2's support was not drawn off by the 2 points needed to lose the election to either 1 or 3 shows that he's a strong leader.

I'm not saying that you're wrong in your argument, but I am saying that you're giving poor examples to support it.

In 2004 we had two major party candidates who were clowns that should not ever be elected for any public office anywhere, much less CIC of the US Armed Forces. Voting with your conscience meant going third party. Voting major party because it gave a vote to the candidate you hated less was a terrible idea in the short AND long terms. All you did was continue to push down awareness of the full spectrum of political leanings. When does the awareness get raised when people follow your system? How do you think you're going to change the voting process when the people you voted in are the people that the system works for?

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Discussions require pros and cons of every argument, not two viewpoints presented as equally valid.

I disagree. There's little point listing pros and cons if there is no other alternative. There's also no point in listing pros and cons if the cons aren't even listed. Also note that I never said my viewpoint should be presented as equally valid. I'm not asking for my comment to be +5 insightful like seemingly every other cookie-cutter anti-authoritarian post out there, I just don't want to be modded down for bringing a little much-needed diversity to slashdot. Ironically enough, when I have posted about certain points of view that are contrary to the groupthink, sometimes I get a -1 Redundant mod, which boggles the mind, since it's usually a response against fifth person posting pretty much exactly the same viewpoint.

Just because you pulled some crap out of your backside doesn't make it automatically as relevant.

No, but the same goes for you and anyone else here on slashdot. It also doesn't automatically make it irrelevant either, so instead of trying to dodge the point here, why not instead actually think about it and draw your own conclusions? I think the mods are gone by now. They can't do your thinking for you this time.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Anonymous Coward]

Paranoia would seem to be one of the better things to institutionalize, especially government schools institutionalizing paranoia of government. It's much healthier than government schools institutionalizing dependency on government.

Fortunately, I was homeschooled, so no worries. I've read Animal Farm (on my own), and the others are all on the list for sometime. They taught me to devour books, which is way better than forcing people to read a few books.

(A reminder to Velvet Flamebait: discussions resulting from reading Brave New World and 1984 probably will have two points of view.)

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Danse]

If half of Candidate #1's support is so easily drawn away, his support is weak and he probably shouldn't win an election as a result.

You argued before that people should vote the way they want and not feel trapped into voting for the two major parties. Now you're arguing that if there are two equally popular candidates, both liked by a sizable majority of voters, they don't deserve to win because the split vote leaves them both with fewer votes than the person least liked by most of the country. That just supports my argument that we have to avoid splitting the vote with a third party because we end up electing the person that most people DON'T want elected.

The fact that Candidate #2's support was not drawn off by the 2 points needed to lose the election to either 1 or 3 shows that he's a strong leader.

No, it just shows that his supporters don't like either of the other two candidates. That's completely understandable if the rest of the population likes both of them about the same, but some have different issue priorities which lead them to support #1 more than #3 or vice versa. The fact still remains that 65% of the country doesn't want #2 to be elected, but they have no way of expressing that while still voting their conscience.

Voting major party because it gave a vote to the candidate you hated less was a terrible idea in the short AND long terms. All you did was continue to push down awareness of the full spectrum of political leanings. When does the awareness get raised when people follow your system?

A ranking system fixes that nicely. While the 2 main party candidates may be clowns, you can vote for the third party and still have a preference expressed between the other two. It would allow people to quit worrying about the side-effect, which is a completely legitimate thing to worry about given past experiences with third parties, and just spell out who they support, and in what order they prefer them.

How do you think you're going to change the voting process when the people you voted in are the people that the system works for?

I will admit that that is the hard part. But with the polarization we see today, it's not likely that any third party could get enough votes to get elected. There aren't enough independents out there to make it happen, and the people that are dumb enough to identify themselves as republicans or democrats are too wrapped up in cheerleading their respective teams and proclaiming the saintliness of their candidates to even consider anyone else.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[moortak]

demos is people kratis is rule rule by the people not the ten tribes res publica is the things of the public

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[boilednut]

The US has not ratified it, and refuses to do so.

Actually, the US-UK Extradition Treaty 2003 was ratified unanimously by by the US Senate in 2006

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[cpt kangarooski]

---- People will accept your ideas much more readily if you tell them that Benjamin Franklin said it first.

Now that sounds like a genuine Franklin quote.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[gzunk]

Good. We'll sort of. The actual treaty itself still sucks about the lack of evidence, but at least it's equally unfair. It still took three years though. Maybe it was lost down the back of the sofa.

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[hpycmprok]

Nope, but they've watched V for Vendetta, the Matrix... and maybe Gattaca.

Yes, I've seen all three

Re:Brave New World, 1984

[Anonymous Coward]

Brave New World, 1984, Fahrenheit 451, Animal Farm, etc...

When I was in school (a while ago) these were books we had to read.

Seems most people 10, 15, or more years younger than myself haven't even heard of these stories.

Corporations are taking over the world. A well functioning democracy requires an educated populace.

Considering what public schools are turning out here in the US, so much of what happens in the world isn't surprising to me anymore.

I don't know what is more disturbing, the fact that so many people don't seem bothered by things like TFA, or that people aren't aware of them and/or don't understand them.

Iâ(TM)ve read those books and was made to at my school and I know of others who did but its true by in large theyâ(TM)re not a part of the curriculum any more what can I say the government wants the populous dumb it makes control easier.

Occam's razor?

[compumike]

Look for a simpler answer... maybe it's just not ready yet? Sure, everyone can guess and make up bad stuff, but ultimately it's going to get presented and read and voted on. Not that we're necessarily going to like it, but keep your pants on!

--
Educational microcontroller kits for the digital generation! Free electronics videos.

Re:Occam's razor?

[spikedvodka]

yes, but it's much easier to arrange a "civil protest" about an action when you know what's going on BEFORE they vote on it.

not to push buttons here, but if there had been enough time prior to the patriot act being voted on, do you think people would have gotten into an uproar?

for this whole democracy thing to work right, we need to have an edumacated populace, we need to know what's going on in enough time to tell our congress-critters how we feel they should represent us.

Re:Occam's razor?

[Lunatrik]

The average man also has to have the *time* to get involved in his/her government - or at least the perception of having the time to do it.

Keep them busy....

Re:Occam's razor?

[srothroc]

Before an educated populace, I think you need one that really cares. If they care, they'll try to educate themselves (hopefully)...

Re:Occam's razor?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think it would start the other way around, and hopefully continue to feed itself cyclically. If someone is so blissfully ignorant of the world around them, and happy to accept what's spoon-fed to them, why would they care enough to delve any deeper?

Re:Occam's razor?

[Anonymous Coward]

not to push buttons here, but if there had been enough time prior to the patriot act being voted on, do you think people would have gotten into an uproar?

No. Back then the majority of the American populace was so swept up in patriotism that they were willing to let the government do whatever they want. From what I remember, this mentality didn't start to fade until after the Iraq War started.

Re:Occam's razor?

[Anonymous Coward]

if there had been enough time prior to the patriot act being voted on, do you think people would have gotten into an uproar?

Actually I'm fairly sure the only uproar would have been on slashdot.

Criminalize This!

[Anonymous Coward]

"criminalize P2P file sharing"

You mean criminalize a technology that is meant to advance society?

See this The Road to P2P Economy which maybe unfairly anti-Google but on the right track.

ACTA Now!

[dotslashdot]

Better ACTA soon, or you will have to forfeit the counterfeit.

Indeed, you're not special

[Chuck Chunder]

If you want to see it in advance then pay like everybody else

No problem

[PPH]

Send them a fake copy.

Re:No problem

[CSMatt]

You joke, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is actually what would happen, given all of the secrecy behind the ACTA and the need to get rid of all the recent public outcry.

FOIA

[poetmatt]

I requested it via FOIA and they danced around it and eventually refused. It'd be nice to see it come out, although I hope this "citizen's group" collectively sent in a few FOIA requests on this one.

Re:FOIA

[Anonymous Coward]

can you post the refuse document somewhere ? It could be helpful for friendly lawyers...

Re:FOIA

[magus_melchior]

Didn't you get the memo? Under the Bush administration, the FOIA is "Forbidden Outside Internal Affairs".

Shouldn't even be a question.

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

The fact that this is even an issue suggests that things are thoroughly rotten. There are arguably justified instances of government secrecy(aspects of national defence, any private data that has to be handled during course of business, certain subsets of police activity); but there is absolutely no plausible claim that ACTA falls under such a heading.

Unfortunately, even figuring out who is responsible is a rather murky business. This is the one thing that really bothers me about a lot of international/multinational activities and organizations. Democracy is tenuous enough with the layers of alleged representation within a nation, once you lay a mass of appointed diplomats on top of that, you get something largely opaque and unresponsive. That might be ok if your job is agreeing that starving orphans are tragic; but if you work will end up as law across the developed world, you need to do better than that.(well, actually you don't, and we just have to suck it up; but I meant that in the normative sense)

Re:Shouldn't even be a question.

[corsec67]

Hence the 10th amendment. The larger the government layer, the harder it is to change.

Too bad many people don't care any more.

If California wants to make marijuana legal, they should be able to, since it isn't interstate commerce.

Re:Shouldn't even be a question.

[hedwards]

The federal government has always done more than that. In the case of drugs in general, you're fooling yourself if you believe that the effects are going to just stay in the state which legalizes.

I mean just look at fireworks as an example, those frequently cross state lines or leave reservations. If the feds weren't allowed to regulate that it would be a huge nightmare for your average person to figure out what combination of policies would be in force.

Cigarettes are another one, around here we have a really high tax on them, much higher than the surrounding states. They do get smuggled in regularly without paying the relevant taxes to the state.

I know it's popular to suggest that marijuana isn't that bad, and perhaps it is. But that's really not a judgment to make until the facts are in. It's been less than 20 years since the more potent varieties have shown up, and it would be surprising if there were any reasonable conclusion for at least a decade or two. In cases like this the onus is always on the person that's arguing that it's safe. Basically because the harm of not doing is far less than the possible harm of doing in most cases.

Re:Shouldn't even be a question.

[cgenman]

I know it's popular to suggest that marijuana isn't that bad, and perhaps it is. But that's really not a judgment to make until the facts are in. It's been less than 20 years since the more potent varieties have shown up, and it would be surprising if there were any reasonable conclusion for at least a decade or two. In cases like this the onus is always on the person that's arguing that it's safe. Basically because the harm of not doing is far less than the possible harm of doing in most cases.

Very true, and I'm glad you're arguing for a standard that clearly the US government applies to all other aspects of suspicious chemicals which might be entering our food ecosystem.

Re:Shouldn't even be a question.

[corsec67]

The federal government has always done more than that. In the case of drugs in general, you're fooling yourself if you believe that the effects are going to just stay in the state which legalizes.

So you mean that before the 18th amendment, the federal government had jurisdiction on what kinds of drugs and alcohol could be sold within a state? I don't know about you, but since 1919 isn't "forever" in my book.

Basically because the harm of not doing is far less than the possible harm of doing in most cases.

You are in favor of banning behaviors that might be harmful to themselves? Why then would cigarettes be legal, which we know causes cancer and is highly addictive, and marijuana be a class 1 narcotic? Marijuana actually has some medical benefits.

You would also be in favor of outlawing grills (carcinogens in the food, the propane), ATVs, motorcycles, driving, smoking, alcohol, etc?

Sorry, I would rather decide for myself what I want to do, rather than have the government tell me.

I mean just look at fireworks as an example, those frequently cross state lines or leave reservations. If the feds weren't allowed to regulate that it would be a huge nightmare for your average person to figure out what combination of policies would be in force.

Sweet, so I can't drive from Denver to Wyoming to get fireworks that are illegal in Colorado?
Like any kind of firework that leave the ground, which is illegal in Colorado?

Re:Shouldn't even be a question.

[rea1l1]

In cases like this the onus is always on the person that's arguing that it's safe. Basically because the harm of not doing is far less than the possible harm of doing in most cases.

Bullshit. Freedom of choice is what the US was originally based on. The responsibility to make such choices should be the choice of the individual adult, not Big Brother. Quit trying to "purify" the world.

Re:Shouldn't even be a question.

[rea1l1]

Marijuana was actually required to be grown by the original colonists, though not for its THC. Detailed outline of the legal history of marijuanain the US:

http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html

Re:Shouldn't even be a question.

[Teun]

If California wants to make marijuana legal, they should be able to, since it isn't interstate commerce.

Just wait for the first harvest :)

Re:Shouldn't even be a question.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not only cheating, but should be a breach of any sane code of conduct - presumably officers of the law uphold integrity - not run for cover and ashamed to be honest in their conduct at all times.
Anyway, as an ignorant citizen, if it came to jury, I would perform my duty, listen, and not convict if the law was more perverse than the alleged infringement. They can pass a law thou shall not fart, but in a real world, not all genies can be bottled up.

Re:Shouldn't even be a question.

[Danse]

I know it's popular to suggest that marijuana isn't that bad, and perhaps it is. But that's really not a judgment to make until the facts are in. It's been less than 20 years since the more potent varieties have shown up, and it would be surprising if there were any reasonable conclusion for at least a decade or two. In cases like this the onus is always on the person that's arguing that it's safe. Basically because the harm of not doing is far less than the possible harm of doing in most cases.

That explains perfectly why much more harmful drugs like cigarettes and alcohol are legal... err.. wait..

Re:Shouldn't even be a question.

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, it's not whether it's safe or not that we care about. If you want to sell the things, just put some warning labels that say these things are not fully researched and could kill you.

The real problem is that the feds are preventing people from doing things that don't affect other people even when they are fully aware of the risks. More worrying are the "enhanced" powers accorded to the police as a part of the war on drugs where they can bust into your house without knocking, seize property on suspicion, etc etc. This is very much a problem that should be reserved to the states. The concentration of power that has resulted is incredibly disproportionate to the extent of the problem and has degraded our republican values.

Re:Shouldn't even be a question.

[moortak]

I know it's popular to suggest that marijuana isn't that bad, and perhaps it is. But that's really not a judgment to make until the facts are in. It's been less than 20 years since the more potent varieties have shown up, and it would be surprising if there were any reasonable conclusion for at least a decade or two.

oh really * King LA, Carpentier C, Griffiths P. âoeCannabis potency in Europe.â Addiction. 2005 Jul; 100(7):884-6 * Henneberger, Melinda. "Pot Surges Back, But Itâ(TM)s, Like, a Whole New World." New York Times 6 February 1994: E18. * Brown, Lee. âoeInterview with Lee Brown,â Dallas Morning News 21 May 1995. * Drug Enforcement Administration. U.S. Drug Threat Assessment, 1993. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 1993. * Kleiman, Mark A.R. Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control. Westport: Greenwood Press, 1989. 29. * Bennett, William. Director of National Drug Control Policy, remarks at Conference of Mayors. 23 April 1990. Higher potency say nothing, absolutely nothing about safety. A larger amount of a safe chemical in a plant leaves less room for other shit. http://www.uccs.edu/~rmelamed/Evolutionism/medical_uses_of_cannabinoid_2/aging_2/thc_toxicity.html http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/toxicol/2003-February/003377.html http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/417545

Want transparency?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want radical transparency, then help build open source governance. In only a few years, all of these stupid, anti-freedom "issues" could be easily resolved.

Who wants to bet...

[DustoneGT]

That The Anointed One and Captain America are both involved in this...

Re:Who wants to bet...

[Tubal-Cain]

Involved how? Involved in the groups opposing it? (Somehow I doubt that was the direction you were going with this)

You'll never get your money back

[AnotherUsername]

Yes, they stole your money and used it to build roads, build hospitals, maintain and strengthen a military, provide protection from criminals, educate the young, stop threats against the country, and help out those who have run into misfortune. Yes, they stole your money and you will never get it back in any form.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget pocketbook lining, a very interesting industry to be sure.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[cayenne8]

"Yes, they stole your money and used it to build roads, build hospitals, maintain and strengthen a military, provide protection from criminals, educate the young, stop threats against the country..."

If only they would stop at those actions!! Yes, those indeed are what a govt. are for for the most part, yet they seem hell bent on overstepping those powers, in order to restrict the rights and privacy of the citizens from whom their power (supposedly) comes from. They seem to be more interested in locking down society, and protecting corporate issues and interests.

THAT is what we're all wary of and protesting....

Re:You'll never get your money back

[digitalchinky]

...and they also invested many billions of stolen dollars in communications equipment and computers to suck down your phone calls, locations, internet activity, and generally monitor everything you do from credit card transactions to tracking your number plate with bridge mounted cameras as you drive your car from one side of the country to the other.

While the things you mention are (sort of) positive, the list of negatives has long since outgrown it.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[lordofwhee]

Except there's the major hitch of my not being able to directly decide where my tax money goes.

How do I know all that money didn't go to some senator getting a massage with a 'happy ending'?

Re:You'll never get your money back

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, they stole your money and used it to build roads, build hospitals, maintain and strengthen a military, provide protection from criminals, educate the young, stop threats against the country, and help out those who have run into misfortune.

Yes, they stole your money and used it to build roads we don't need while failing to repair what we have correctly, build hospitals that sub-contract everything so they can dodge regulations on billing etc while collecting more from the patients, maintain and strengthen a military to pick fights that lower the world's view of our country, make criminals out of everyone they can via silly laws, stacking charges till a person decides to plea bargain cause they can't afford to defend themselves and wish to save their families from financial ruin, attempt to train the young to blindly accept authoritary and go to work for existing corporations or the government instead of following the American dream, lead the public to believe the government can stop threats against the country while inspiring more threats, and create an environment where people are guaranteed to suffer in misfortune so the government can drive them into more misfortune with free as in beer fish.

That might be easily viewed as fixing your statement for you, but much easier just to say they are laundering our money in pork barrels.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[mOdQuArK!]

Would it be more acceptable if you still had to pay about the same amount in taxes, but could control which social service providers it went to?

Re:You'll never get your money back

[meringuoid]

Yes, but apart from the roads, the hospitals, the civic security, law and order, education, and social welfare, what have the government ever done for us?

Re:You'll never get your money back

[Anonymous Coward]

LORETTA:
        And it's safe to walk in the streets at night now, Reg.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[Dekker3D]

yup... that, and making sure they've got the highest salary in the country. at least, that's how it is in the netherlands, where "they shouldn't be making more money than the prime minister!" was an actual argument against power companies..

just thought i'd put that out there. they're not doing all that good of a job, most of the time. anyone mildly intelligent could think of anything our government has done so far. and more, usually.
an average salary for an average job should be more than appropriate, i'd say.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[Dekker3D]

actually, it would. in that case, the amount of money for certain operations would be directly related to how many people care for it.

at the very least, we'd have less wars, and shorter ones, too.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[Anonymous Coward]

"They seem to be more interested in locking down society, and protecting corporate issues and interests."

In fairness, "protecting corporate issues and interests" is and should be one of the most important jobs of government in order to have a well-functioning and fair economy ("fair" in that businesses compete on a reasonably even playing field, consumers have some basic protections, and employers do not exploit their workers too greatly). That being said, it could be argued that rather than having these interests at heart, many of the laws that governments have been passing recently are designed more to enrich corporations and let them take advantage of people (whether consumers or workers).

I mean, sheesh, the recent mortgage meltdown is a perfect example. No income, no job, no asset loans (so-called "ninja" loans)? Why in the hell was this ever legal? Where were the government regulators as mortgage companies were making money off these obviously risky schemes? And now U.S. taxpayers are out >$200 billion dollars in bailouts, hundreds of billions of dollars of investments worldwide have evaporated, and the economy tanks. It's the "Savings and Loan" fiasco all over again.

All we hear from corporations is that they want less regulation of the things that keep them honest, and more regulation (like parts of ACTA) that will hose competitors and consumers. The reality is, they don't really give a !@#$%^! what happens as long as they make their money and don't end up in jail. That's why government needs to be involved in "protecting corporate issues and interests", because in the long/whole economy view, the corporations sure don't care. They only care about *their* individual bottom lines.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[Schadrach]

I think the phrase "protecting corporate issues and interests" was intended to mean specifically those positions that act in favor of large corporations, as opposed to those that involve corporations in a manner that restricts them from doing as they'd like.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[JoeFromPhilly]

Yes, but apart from the roads, the hospitals, the civic security, law and order, education, and social welfare, what have the government ever done for us?

Nothing we couldn't have done for ourselves. The only money they have is the money we give them and the money they borrow in our names, after all.

Additionally, I don't think they do better than a fair job at any of the items in your list. And I'm being generous.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[pla]

Yes, they stole your money and used it to build roads, build hospitals, maintain and strengthen a military, provide protection from criminals, educate the young, stop threats against the country, and help out those who have run into misfortune

...Kill Iraqis and depose their sovereign government that had nothing to do with 9/11, fund international terrorism up until the late 1990s, control the world drug trade through the mid 1980s, go to war with our own states over medical marijuana, "render" American citizens without due process or even filing charges.


Yes, they stole your money and you will never get it back in any form.

Yes, they did. And we should all want their heads on a stake for that. Oh, look, the sun came up again! Everyone run to the other side of the field!

Re:You'll never get your money back

[Stooshie]

... fund international terrorism up until the late 1990s ...

There, fixed that for you.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[Anonymous Coward]

>at the very least, we'd have less wars

That'd be "fewer wars", Sparky.

HTH. HAND.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[Anonymous Coward]

And exactly which of these does the Constitution authorize the government to do?

Build Roads

Don't recall reading that job description for the feds. States, maybe.

Build Hospitals

Not even mentioned. Maybe you could stretch Promote the general welfare from the Preamble

Strengthen a Military

Ok, that one is there.

Protection from Criminals

There is no explicit provisions for law enforcement in the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment gives me the ability to defend myself (even from the government)

Educate the Young

Can't find anything in the Constitution about that, meaning it was a state responsibility.

Stop threats against the country

Well, there's details about defending the country. Stopping threats could be interpreted as preemptive strikes, like Iraq. This one is grey, 1/2 point.

Help those who have run into misfortune

Not anywhere in the Constitution I can find. That started with the New Deal.

So by my count, you have a score of 1.5 out of 7.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[natarnsco]

Yes, but apart from the roads, the hospitals, the civic security, law and order, education, and social welfare, what have the government ever done for us?

The aquaducts?

Re:You'll never get your money back

[Anonymous Coward]

fund international terrorism up until the late 1990s, control the world drug trade through the mid 1980s

What makes you think that the US Government has stopped doing either of these in recent years?

Re:You'll never get your money back

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

And the wine.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[Anonymous Coward]

we'd have less wars, and shorter ones, too.

In the United States? We seem to be quite fond of war and have a huge military-industrial complex that profits immensely from it. They pay stockholders and employees so there are two more groups in favor of war. Then there are all the veterans organizations that seem to remember wars as being somehow glorious. And finally lots of politicians who see war as being a good way to stay in office.

I suspect we'd see even more money going to war than now - especially if we could manage to hire mercenaries to fight for us.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[eagee]

Which makes me feel all snuggly wuggly and safe!

Re:You'll never get your money back

[cayenne8]

"In fairness, "protecting corporate issues and interests" is and should be one of the most important jobs of government in order to have a well-functioning and fair economy..."

Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your view)...this is simply not a constitutionally granted power that the government (Federal) has at this time.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[jrp2]

"Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your view)...this is simply not a constitutionally granted power that the government (Federal) has at this time."

Hmmm, though I agree with the general sentiment that government has the wrong priorities, and is protecting their rich friends (and themselves) it is hard to question whether they have a constitutionally granted power to do this. I believe the commerce clause gives them this power.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[philspear]

THAT is what we're all wary of and protesting....

Fine protest, but let's not go overboard with our cynicism and say the government does nothing good ever. Then we look like a bunch of ridiculous, clueless archanists. Plus I come to your house and steal all your stuff and call you a hypocrite if you go to the police.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[The_Wilschon]

Hey mods, I know this guy is an AC, but he's got the stuff we need to hear. Throw a couple of points his way.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[lupis42]

Could be 'less war' too, after all, war is not inherently quantized. Wars are simply instances of War.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[DinDaddy]

No, that seems to be what they did with my parents' money. My money seems to be going to a host of other things while the things you reference slowly rot into unusable decay.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[AnotherUsername]

Funny little story about the mortgage and financial crisis. Where were the regulators? They were let go by Phil Gramm due to a law he wrote and got passed in 1999. It pretty much deregulated the entire financial industry.

Less government regulation + greed of big corporations = our present situation

On a political side note, guess where Mr. Gramm is now...

Yep, he's the economics advisor to John McCain, who doesn't like regulation. Guess what will happen if McCain is elected...

Re:You'll never get your money back

[sertsa]

okay I agree, they did do that with some of the money.

They also used that money to:

- overthrow democratically elected governments and supported to the hilt the dictators who took their place
- spy on American citizens
- provide corporate welfare
- suppress information about harmful chemicals in our food containers

Re:You'll never get your money back

[DinDaddy]

True, but one possibility is that we'd have one. That we didn't start. Or win.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[AnotherUsername]

The whole 'being able to decide where tax dollars go' argument is ludicrous. If people were able to decide where tax money went, our governmental services would go into shambles. People who hated cops would say that they weren't going to pay for police protection while the anti-war activists would not want to pay the salaries of the soldiers and the people whose kids weren't in school wouldn't want to pay for education. People who don't use roads would not want to pay for roadways, and concentrate their moneys in sidewalks and bike paths. Part of living in a society means that you accept from your government how they use your money. If you do not like how they use it, then you elect someone else.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[AnotherUsername]

And then there's that whole idea that the Constitution is just a basis guideline, and not meant to encompass every law that would ever be created. The idea of Amendments, even, was not meant to fully encompass every law. That's why they created a legislature(bicameral, even!), so that laws, not just amendments, could be drafted, voted upon, and put into effect. It seems that every time something about the government comes up, there is someone who says that the government can only do explicitly what the Constitution says. Never is the mention that the Constitution is considered a living Constitution, meaning that it is apt to change. How about we make a Constitutional Amendment, saying that everthing in the parent's post was now guaranteed by the government. I'm betting that there would be alot of people yelling and screaming that 'That's not what the founding fathers had in mind' blah blah blah.

Let's take, for instance, the idea of the 2nd Amendment. If you look at history, every man was a member of the militia. So therefore, every man was entitled to the right to bear arms. This is true. However, let's follow that idea into the present. Saying that every man now deserves to bear arms means that every man should be in the National Guard, since they should have to protect others with it. Nowhere does it say that you can use your rifle or shotgun to hunt with. Therefore, you don't have the right. You can only use it to be part of a well regulated militia. You can sign up here.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[Anonymous Coward]

where's the '+1 accurate' mod?

Re:You'll never get your money back

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone came into your house, stole your TV and gave it to charity, would you thank him? The government uses violence to fix problems, so how do they do anything good?

Re:You'll never get your money back

[HiThere]

For many things there are two choices:
Corporations and government
Of those two...
Well, SOMETIMES corporations are more efficient than government. This is not, however, predictable in advance. And government often is more concerned with providing service...especially as it gets more local.

One of the prime functions of the larger layers of government that isn't often mentioned is to limit the abuses of the lower levels of government. It doesn't do all that good a job of it, but nobody else is even trying.

Another function that government is supposed to provide is honest justice. Sigh. If only government acted as it was supposed to instead of as it does.

The current government is clearly far overblown, and too costly. And it spends money improperly, and breaks its own rules to increase its power. And it doesn't provide justice. And the streets are falling apart....sometimes because the government doesn't care, and sometimes because the contractor is the brother-in-law of the head of the local city council. And that's just local. When you extrapolate to the higher levels (state and fed) things get worse. That's when money from large corporations becomes the dominant factor.

The problem is, what alternative do you propose, and how do you expect to achieve it? The extrapolated result for most answers to that question is considerably worse than the current state.

Note that a large part of our civilizations mentality is derived from centrally distributed water and electricity. If you (as in a city or local area rather than an individual) intend to revolt other than through approved channels, then be prepared to do without either water or electricity. Nice trap, huh? Of course it only works as long as local water distribution remains reliable. (Local electric generation at reduced power levels is quite feasible. But it would require considerable advance preparation.)

Re:You'll never get your money back

[HTH NE1]

If someone came into your house, stole your TV and gave it to charity, would you thank him?

If I no longer wanted it and would have had to pay someone else to take it away, yes.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[Anonymous Coward]

So you consider stealing to be branded not stealing, when it becomes voluntary. It's like rape. If one person complies it isn't rape.

No, stealing is the use of force, and in this case, it is to be getting a car, going to every house in a given area (America), and taking everyone's TV, and donating it to charity?

Re:You'll never get your money back

[ReedYoung]

What's more, we'll be billed for each of those at least once more, in direct and/or indirect costs. Now that those messes have been made, the best case scenario is that we will bear the burden of cleaning them up very soon. More likely is that they will be allowed to fester until the cost of righting the mistakes of the corporatist elites will be far more. Consider corporate welfare. Each of the $10,100,000,000 bestowed on Exxon-Mobil and other petroleum cartels not only comes from our tax payments today, it adds to our future tax and household expense burdens by prolonging the use of petroleum as the primary transportation fuel source beyond sustainable levels, and discouraging rapid adoption of alternative energy sources. Switching away from petroleum will without doubt be required. On cannot reasonably argue that it will not run out eventually, and it will be more trouble than it's worth much sooner than the "Drill, baby, drill" morons want to believe.

By postponing this inevitable switch, we only shorten the time available in which to do it and constrain ourselves to endure the transition with lower supply and higher demand, thus higher prices. From Econ 101/102, the relevant graph is a demand curve. Corporate welfare, like all mismanagement of collectivized expense, costs the collective at least twice: once to screw up, and at least once more to get it right. In the special case of a shrinking supply, the nature of economic forces states beyond a reasonable doubt that exponentially increasing long-term costs will be the result. Political science tells us in the current petroleum crisis to expect the same pressures, combined with corruption within (throughout is more like it) the military-industrial complex to result in more neo-colonial invasions, which will cause intermittent, marginal reductions in demand. Hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqi civilians are just the tip of the iceberg, unless petroleum consumption begins to drop faster than supply, very soon.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[philspear]

If someone came into your house, stole your TV and gave it to charity, would you thank him? The government uses violence to fix problems, so how do they do anything good?

Well, those two things ARE exactly the same, now aren't they?

Re:You'll never get your money back

[dwarfking]

No the Constitution does not specify every law, but what it does say is that any power not granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution belongs to the States. But that is not what we have, we have an overly intrusive, oppressive Federal Government that has taken away State's rights.

The Congress basis all of their ability to make these laws on one clause: Interstate Commerce. The problem is they have stretched everything to be considered under that clause.

As for your comment about the 2nd Amendment, I suggest you go and read the historical record about the discussion of that one. The Amendment was proposed so that the people would have the ability to defend themselves against their government.

The original text was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person

And was not intended to go into the Bill Of Rights (which wasn't in the original drafts of the Constitution), but in Article I. This text was not listed in the Section 8 which discussed Congress' rights over the militia, but in Section 9 which list individual rights.

Subsequent versions of the text:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And the final version

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Notice how state went from State - capitalized referring to the individual States, to state - lower referring to the union. This was because the Federalists that sought strong central government did not like this amendment. In the end it was written in the capital meaning it gave the State and the sovereign citizens of that State the right to defend itself from a central government. That all died with the Civil War when we went from being These United States to The United States, but that was the purpose of it.

As for hunting, the 5th Amendment reads in part

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

and as hunting was a necessity for Life, since there were no major grocery store chains then, citizens could not be deprived of the ability to hunt or their arms (property). Today you might make the case that hunting isn't a necessity, and I personally don't hunt, but I think the case can be made that right existed for the time.

But always keep in mind, the 10th Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The Constitution was never intended to list all the rights of the individual, but it IS intended to list all of the rights of the federal government. Unless listed in the Constitution the right does not reside with the Feds.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[Dekker3D]

if it looks like someone's actually attacking america, the funding would return in no time. in the meantime, i'm sure they'll manage. you know how much they get now every year?

Re:You'll never get your money back

[Jaazaniah]

I don't know the statistics, but I'd be curious to see if any of the groups you mentioned (cop-haters, anti-war-activists) would be statistically significant, income-wise, to cause collapse in the respective system. Locally? maybe. But if we're talking technology-enabled tax allocation election (and we are, it would be impossible otherwise), then we could simply take all the money up to a pool, aggregate the % elections, then trickle down to the departments accordingly.

This, however, will never happen in the United States. We are very technically capable of designing and implementing a system such as this. The current political body is not willing to change anything in fields they now have power in. As benevolent as many of them are, telling a large chunk of them that they will not need to make decisions on X anymore because it's going to the people, even if security of the system is air-tight, will bring up many cries relating to history and education being the deciding factors for these things. This is why the electoral college was founded, but that was done in an age before public information availability. They'll argue that their way is still necessary, we'll argue otherwise, and in the end the proposal won't see a vote.

If you want an example, let's point to the Diebold fiasco, where salespeople and contracts were put ahead of independent criticism and gave us a patchy (at best) and easily-hackable first generation eVoting, where other smaller countries (mainly in Europe) have been doing it smoothly for years. This was an example of disjointed politics attempting to make technical decisions. The end result was a media with big distrust in eVoting, a couple of choice flaws brought up by technology groups that can be quoted out of context and slapped on any eVoting system (mostly with impunity because the public already has a negative view thanks to the media), and several counties that have moved back to paper because of it all.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[The_Wilschon]

If you look at history, every man was a member of the militia.

Citation please? Even during the Revolutionary Frickin' War, there were thousands of men who were not. Merchants, farmers, do-nothings, politicians, etc. Most men engaged in no military activity whatsoever.

Re:You'll never get your money back

[lsatenstein]

I really don't think that they help those who have run into misfortune the way that a filthy rich country should. They do help foreign countries, but as yet the poor in the USA get zippo, nada, nothing, not even some medicare.

Stupid citizens

[clarkkent09]

Citizens Demand To See Secret ACTA Treaty

It wouldn't be secret if you could see it, now would it. Now be patriotic and buy some $16 CDs. Otherwise Bin Laden wins!!!

Re:Stupid citizens

[zoom-ping]

It wouldn't be secret if you could see it, now would it. Now be patriotic and buy some $16 CDs. Otherwise Bin Laden wins!!!

I wish CDs were so cheap here...

Re:Democracy != Republic

[hedwards]

Umm, technically ours would be a democratic republic. We don't vote on every issue, but we vote on many and the times when we don't vote on the issue we vote for the people that make the decision.

A republic does not require voting, Rome for example appointed people to their senate based purely on age, nothing more. They represented the people but the people weren't allowed to vote about anything.

Just because we're not in the model of the Athenian democracy, doesn't mean we aren't a type of democracy.

You completely misunderstand...

[Anonymous Coward]

...how international treaties are implemented.

Any representative of your government, my government, or any other western-style democratic government can sign any treaty they like.

But, until that treaty is passed through the necessary legislative body/bodies and ratified then it hasn't become law.

Put another way both the executive branch and the legislative branch have to approve of any treaty for it to be entered into the statute books.

Even if that weren't the case, if the wording of the treaty conflicts with the wording of a constitution, charter, bill of rights, or any other already existing law. It becomes the responsibility of the judicial branch to decide which has a higher standing in-law, in almost all cases you will find that the constitution, charter, or bill of rights will be found to have precedence.

What bothers me the most, and what I don't think most people understand / are aware of, is how international treaties can be signed, thus becoming laws which supersede the most supreme law of the country (constitution, charter, bill of rights etc.) all without public knowledge or involvement.

I think every single democratic country desperately needs to update their charters with clauses requiring that all international agreements be signed with public knowledge, consent and involvement and to clearly make available avenues for referendums so that the public can force their governments to withdraw if the majority of the population wishes (without replacing their government obviously).

corporations != capitalism

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing that everyone seems to equate corporations=capitalism.

If you actually sit down and analyse the way most corporations behave in an economic sense, you'll find that there is very little about their behaviour that fits with laissez-faire style of capitalism of which you obviously believe they are manifest.

SME are a close fit to the capitalist model. Multinational corporations have a much closer kinship with centrally planned marxist models.

When you say "Corporations are taking over the world", are you generalizing a bit, or do you really hate Capitalism, or do you have a better explanation for Corporations as the cause of the crap storm that is our future?

Please don't read this as a troll I'm just trying to understand your perspective on the matter.

Essentially you and I can agree on a number of things although I would add Atlas Shrugged to that list, and I would say "People who do not think are taking over the world."

I'm curious as to how far apart our view points are while still arriving at a similar estimation of the problem. That will be the true test of how bad it is.

Re:corporations != capitalism

[wellingj]

Woa... Unlike you I didn't jump to conclusions and asked for a clarification question on his position.

But maybe you should read my post from above before you make more guesses about how I think.

But, yes for the most part I do agree with you, although I think it's more fascism without a figurehead. But really we are just arguing shades of evil at that point.

Re:Property rights trump human rights in the USA

[calmofthestorm]

Happen to have any source on that? I'm pretty sure that property rights are considered a human right, but I don't think the one trumps the other.

I'm speaking of how I think things are, not of how things ought to be. Given I'm on slashdot it should be clear I'm a raving anti-imaginary property zealot.

Illegal until proven safe?

[Combatjuan]

In cases like this the onus is always on the person that's arguing that it's safe. Basically because the harm of not doing is far less than the possible harm of doing in most cases.

Your posting history seems to indicate that you are a reasonable and intelligent person, so I have to assume that you mean something very specific by "cases like this". Because if "cases like this" is interpreted as even a somewhat general thing then you seem to be saying that by default any (physiologically altering?) substance should be illegal until it has been proven to be safe for several decades.

I think rather the opposite: that a substance should only be made illegal if it is proven to be harmful--and what is more, it should only be made illegal if it directly harms a person other than a person consenting to be harmed by it.

I'd like clarification on what cases you think should be illegal by default. Maybe you could suggest a blanket law that would define a class of things as illegal for intake until they are approved?

Disclaimer: I have never tried marijuana or any other illegal drug.

Re:Illegal until proven safe?

[Raenex]

Disclaimer: I have never tried marijuana or any other illegal drug.

What are you waiting for?

treaty

[alxkit]

i got a copy right here...oh, you mean the original?

HAH!

[plasmacutter]

Also, nothing the government does can supersede the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is not a declaration of what the people are allowed.

FAIL!

the bill of rights is a list of things the government is not permitted to do, and it has been razed, ground to a fine powder, burned, deatomized, put through a particle accelarator, and the atomic soup left dispersed from the probe we shot into jupiter.

There are many rulings which completely ignore the bill of rights when the sellouts in the USSC see more money on the side of corrupted interests.

Examples: the souter eminent domain ruling, the refusal to entertain a case brought against the government for making "de facto" perpetual copyright law, and the list goes on and on.

All the bill of rights is used for today is a straw man. Neocons and corporate servants point to the bill of rights and declare it's inviolable simply because it's there, then sneak behind the publics back and carve planet sized holes in it.

What about the *really* secret treaties?

[PolygamousRanchKid]

Because the public knows about ACTA, means that they can try to do something about it.

What about the secret treaties, of which we know nothing?

They might be trying to ban civilian use of tinfoil, or something like that.

The lack of MSM reports on this is Damning.

[plasmacutter]

I just did a google news search, and nobody outside the ars technica/slashdot crowd has stories listed for this.

The fact that such a huge coalition is being ignored by CNN, NBC, ABC, REUTERS, et. al. shows how deeply these news agencies are buried under the thumb of the media cartels.

Positively disgusting.

Re:The lack of MSM reports on this is Damning.

[steelfood]

Erm, they are the media cartels. Obviously, they're going to ignore it.

The internet is a great threat to them, and in more than one way. That's why they want to control it with treaties such as this.

I don't get it- secret laws still exist in the US?

[Lazy Jones]

How is it possible that citizens must comply with laws that they cannot know because they're secret? (see also: papersplease.org).

Also, how can this still be called a "democracy" when those people, who are supposedly holding the power, are not allowed to know what their so-called representatives are doing?

just keep doing it and

[nimbius]

pretty soon all media will become so encumbered and restricted no one will dare channel surf in any format. i think it would be a pretty good thing...might get kids to start reading again. then again, i watch alot of spongebob squarepants, so id expect some sort of underground bootleg network of pirates (a bay of sorts perhaps) to surface.

packrat says...

[Anonymous Coward]

the underground ecoonomy is tax free
our golbal corps are tax free (+ subsidized)
the gov't is tax free.

    monitized the zombie ecology!

or get suashed like a bug.

  hello, gunfodder... now try the secret ooxml-type unification treaties

packrat, canada.

Canadian election

[oldspewey]

We have an election coming up in Canada on October 14. I have not heard a single thing from any of the 5 party leaders on this issue.

Sorry to say

[hesaigo999ca]

Only in the US can they get away with this. I guess that's why the US are the ones doing it.

The bigger picture???

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't just about America.

No one here is going to give a crap about copy right issues in comparison to what else this is going to do.

Globalized monetary standard. The majority of us all end up a bunch of slave like sheep when this takes place.

A few pennies on the dollar, anyhow

[phorm]

As per 2008 or back in 2007

It's not that some money doesn't make it to useful programs. Some does. But a huge amount is squandered on other things that really have no benefit to the majority of the country's populace, or sometimes even things that have negative effect on the gross majority.

There's a good amount of money that simply falls off the radar too. Some to secret projects, and others to line pockets.

Threat to free software

[Anonymous Coward]

The Free Software Foundation has published "Speak out against ACTA", stating that the ACTA threatens free software by creating a culture "in which the freedom that is required to produce free software is seen as dangerous and threatening rather than creative, innovative, and exciting."[7] Specifically the FSF argues that ACTA will makes it more difficult and expensive to distribute free software via file sharing and P2P technologies like BitTorrent, which are currently used to distributing large amounts of free software. The FSF also argues that ACTA will make it harder for users of free operating systems to play media because DRMed media cannot be played with free software

Re:Brave New World, 1984 --offtopic

[Anonymous Coward]

What I want to know is, if it is important for a population of a country to understand it's laws in order to protect itself from all enemies foreign and domestic, and the Gov. itself, then why isn't the constitution and bill of rights taught from 1st grade through 12th grade. So that any citizen going through the education system of this country can be clear on their rights and the protections afforded then from the documents.

I will extrapolate from this observation that it is "by design", that the population of America is not forced to understand these topics so as to ensure the Governments position. You see, many people believe that the gov. is an entity that exists and "allows" us, the population, to do what they let us. Not that we have these rights, and we allow the gov. to do what they do. It is a sad day for all of us in America.

Re:Democracy != Republic

[Slaytanic213]

No mater how many ways you say it, this is not a democracy.
You really should consider reading what a Republic and a Democracy is.
I should have said this form of government is a Constitutional Republic.
But I still would get modded down while ignorance and stupidity is praised.
Have your democracy, but this country needs to return to a Constitutional Republic.

democracy = FORCE and mob rule.
Republic = rule of law and FREEDOM!

The word "democracy" (Greek: ) combines the elements demos (, which means "people") and kratos (, which means "force" or "power"). In the words "monarchy" and "oligarchy", the second element arche means rule, leading, or being first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy

A Non-Consenting Rapist?

[HTH NE1]

So you consider stealing to be branded not stealing, when it becomes voluntary. It's like rape. If one person complies it isn't rape.

Well, if I didn't want my virginity and would have had to pay someone to take it away....

(If one particular person complies. Or are you suggesting there's such a thing as a non-consenting rapist?)

BTW, I checked a few dictionaries and only saw force as a required element in one, and that for the definition of stealing one's liberty. In others it was just an optional element.

Re:A Non-Consenting Rapist?

[philspear]

Or are you suggesting there's such a thing as a non-consenting rapist

Completely non-consentual sex, that WOULD be pretty bad. Thank god that at least doesn't exist.

Re:A Non-Consenting Rapist?

[Anonymous Coward]

Completely non-consentual sex, that WOULD be pretty bad. Thank god that at least doesn't exist.

Unfortunately, it does exist, commonly in the form of incestuous rape forced by a third party under threat of death of one or both subjects.