Iceland Taps Facebook To Rewrite Its Constitution

An anonymous reader writes "Iceland is finally overhauling its constitution, and it has turned to the Internet to get input from citizens. More specifically, the 25-member council drafting the new constitution is reaching out to its citizens through Facebook. Two thirds of Iceland's population (approximately 320,000) is on Facebook, so the constitutional council's weekly meetings are broadcast live not only on the council's website, but on the social network as well. 'It is possible to register through other means, but most of the discussion takes place via Facebook,' said Berghildur Bernhardsdottir, spokeswoman for the constitutional review project."

Comments

public-private partnership

[Hazel Bergeron]

I guess "reliance on large private corporations for operation of and participation in government" is going to be part of the new constitution? Not that it isn't de facto part of every other modern Western constitution, but now they've announced the overhaul it seems to me the right time to start being open about how the world runs now.

Re:public-private partnership

[FriendlyLurker]

Iceland has set a shining example to the rest of the world on how NOT to be subjected to never-ending corporate control. An example that other countries citizens are fighting in the streets (literally) to try and follow.

Re:public-private partnership

[Kokuyo]

They use a readily available media where they reach two thirds of their population. At the same time, they operate another portal, so they do not depend on that private organization.

How could you even ask for more than that? How is this not exactly the right thing to combine independence with available, modern technology?

Jesus, you'd find something to complain about if you could have your cake and eat it, too, methinks.

Re:public-private partnership

[Hazel Bergeron]

'It is possible to register through other means, but most of the discussion takes place via Facebook ,' said Berghildur Bernhardsdottir, spokeswoman for the constitutional review project."

Re:public-private partnership

[rolfwind]

That article you linked to was full of shit. The richer EU nations have consistently given money to poorer areas in the EU (although imo it isnt their responsibility). The US bailing out its carmakers is not an example of the govt bailing out economically depressed area (vs companies). Flint, MI is going to stay as poor as ever. And Greece is in trouble largely through its own overspending - ie everyone there wants to be early retiring overpaid underworked bureaucrat there.

And that was only from the opening of that article. Needless to say, people/countries that don't pay back debts won't find a lot of investment dollars going their way. That's the price of walking away.

Re:public-private partnership

[Rei]

Indeed. So many people are perpetuating this false notion about the Icelandic crisis.

1) Iceland *has* taken austerity measures, and pretty significant ones -- about 40% cuts, 60% revenue.

2) Iceland *did* pump significant money into their banks -- nearly a year's worth of GDP as loans. However, they did it *after* the banks went into receivership. This let them fully bail out their own citizens while not fully bailing out the citizens of other countries who invested. This is actually the basis for the legal case against them.

3) This action is the reason that, contrary to popular misconception, the Icelandic crisis is *far* from over. This isn't about banks, the IMF, some shadowy cartel, or whatnot trying to force Iceland to pay back vague "debts". Rather, it's about paying back UK and Dutch citizens for their maximum insurable losses in their Icesave accounts. Individuals, not institutional investors, and the entities seeking the payback are the UK and Dutch governments. Iceland rejected reduced settlements with them in the referendum, so now they're having to fight paying back the *full* cost in the EFTA court system. If they lose, things will go very badly for them. One thing that may help is that the estates of the collapsed banks appear to be larger than expected, so they may be able to pay off most if not all of the overseas accounts just from that.

4) In a way, this is as much aggravated by old rivalries than anything else, esp. with the UK. It certainly didn't help matters that the UK invoked a provision designed for terrorists against Iceland to sieze Landsbanki assets in the UK. It's so crazy that I sometimes run into British people online talking about how they should sue Iceland for the volcanoes.

I don't know that Iceland's approach was right or wrong. They definitely got themselves into a lot of trouble with their domestic bailout. But as for taking things to the EFTA, only time will see how that goes. I do find it admirable that they've thrown their legal system not just at the bankers that caused the mess, but the politicians who stood by or were complicit in allowing it to happen. Their real problem is that their banking crisis was so much larger than their economy, so when other nations wanted them to insure against the losses from their banks, well...

Re:public-private partnership

[digitig]

Yes, and I bet before this people arranged meetings by telephone over systems run by large private corporations, drove to meetings in cars made by large private corporations using fuel supplied by large private corporations and took notes on laptop computers made by large private corporations or on paper made by large private corporations with pens made by large private corporations. So what's new here?

Re:public-private partnership

[Anonymous Coward]

"Rather, it's about paying back UK and Dutch citizens for their maximum insurable losses in their Icesave accounts."

Yes, but one can't help wonder if a government/citizenry should pay for damages caused by corporations.

"Their real problem is that their banking crisis was so much larger than their economy"

That's also a problem for most of the rest of the world, given that the volume of the financial market is some 10 times larger than the volume of the rest of the market (source: CIA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_market).

Re:public-private partnership

[Anonymous Coward]

You can choose the brand of your car and use the same roads than others.
You can choose in which brand of stations you want to refill your car.
You can choose the pen that suit you the most to write on the brand of paper you prefere and anyone is still able to read you.
You can choose your phone carrier and handset brand and still communicate with other users of the network.
You can buy any brand of laptop, use the OS that you want and your favorite navigator and still be able to surf the web and read your email.

You have to use Facebook to read what is on Facebook.

Standards and interoptability matter.

Re:public-private partnership

[AmiMoJo]

I have little sympathy for people who invested in Icelandic banks from overseas. They gave very favourable interest rates and returns in exchange for greater risk, and people are now complaining that they never expected that risk to actually materialise. Well, too bad, you took a chance and lost. The system in the UK compensates you up to (IIRC) £35k if you are a private individual but beyond that you are on your own.

I had an account with an Indian bank for a couple of years to get their high interest rates, but I never expected the same security as from a UK bank.

Re:public-private partnership

[Dunbal]

Yeah because traditional referendums don't rely on corporations to print their ballots, corporations to make the voting booths, corporations to make the buildings the process happens in, the chairs people sit on, the transport people use to get to the polls, etc.

Re:public-private partnership

[Anonymous Coward]

Iceland didn't have a problem with these compensation requirements when they were taking in the customers at the height of things.

Neither did the population (not only the bankers) which went on a credit feast, only to turn into "victims" of banking after things went wrong.

I find it funny that Iceland is getting into becoming a heaven of hosting. Yeah right. We know what they're worth if things go awry. They have shown their true colors. You cannot depend on these people on anything.

Re:public-private partnership

[Hazel Bergeron]

Yeah because traditional referendums don't rely on corporations to print their ballots,

None of your examples are about the citizens needing to make an explicit choice to use a single private business in order to be able to participate fully in constitutional change. The analogy here would be requiring me to buy Dunbal(R) Branded Paper(TM) before I can write down my choice.

corporations to make the voting booths,

Is there a standardised voting booth design? Does a single private firm have to build one for every polling station across the country? Do I actually have to walk into the booth before I fill in my ballot paper?

corporations to make the buildings the process happens in,

Or public buildings built by public employees with public money. Or public buildings built with public money used to pay a local private firm.

the chairs people sit on,

As for buildings.

the transport people use to get to the polls, etc.

I know it's an oddity in America, but public transport built and served with public funding is fairly standard elsewhere. The older vehicles, before the global Reaganite stealing of public industries, were even built by public employees. For postal votes, we still have the public postal system.

Sometimes government relies on private business to provide goods and services - this may be appropriate for local government which can hire local firms (e.g. perhaps a carpenter to build chairs). But it is really never appropriate for a government to rely on a large corporation. Among every other disadvantage, corruption is inevitable.

Re:public-private partnership

[MichaelSmith]

They should log the entire country on to Eve Online and debate their constitution there.

Re:public-private partnership

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in the United States, instead of throwing our legal system at the people responsible, we gave them all cabinet positions in the current administration. That'll teach 'em.

Re:public-private partnership

[PopeRatzo]

I guess "reliance on large private corporations for operation of and participation in government" is going to be part of the new constitution?

"Reliance" is an extreme way to view this situation. Iceland is communicating with its citizens where they are.

Currently, Iceland is my favorite nation on Earth. The fact that as a country they decided to put their people ahead of bankers is simply amazing. I'm surprised we haven't sent bombers over there to bring them into line.

If we had done the same in 2008 we'd be in much better financial shape today. And that goes for the EU too.

So you wanna watch what you say about my Iceland...

Re:public-private partnership

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a bit like blaming the victim. I once considered moving money to IceSave. I'm Dutch, and a lot of Dutch people did this. Why? Because it was advertised everywhere that IceSave was a solid bank with a triple A rating. This was confirmed by a lot of financial experts (in magazines, newspapers, radio, etc) and people otherwise experienced in the matter. How can you blame the average consumer for taking a risk? As far as they knew, there was no risk. Or at least no bigger risk than other (Dutch) banks?

Blaming the victim happens a lot when it comes to financial stuff. The reality is that the average financial product is often so incredibly complex and riddled with nasty fineprints, that the average consumer cannot possibly be held accountable when they end up making a bad decision.

I never moved any money to IceSave by the way. Call me conservative, but when it comes to money I prefer to keep it close and on a bank that i'm familiar with. Of course this is what everyone should've done. But that's easy to say after the fact. I really can't blame people that did go to IceSave.

Re:public-private partnership

[FriendlyLurker]

One of the central points made by the research professor in his analysis was not all or none on austerity measures - but that the taxpayers were very correct in not agreeing to foot the total losses of the private banking sector - to the extent that Iceland would never be able to repay the private sector losses+interest, and so avoid entering national level "debt slavery" that they can never escape from. Besides the overwhelming evidence presented to support his analysis (including the "Brady bonds that resolved Latin American and Third World debts in the 1980s" and the resulting social and unfortunate economic impact those "austerity" measures have had on the region) - this particular professor of economics is not alone in his analysis. Increasingly economists who are worth their salt and not mere shills for the financial industry (a short list) are coming the the same or similar conclusions - including a nobel prize in economics winner or two.

When I discuss this kind of analysis with some well educated Economist colleagues of mine, the knee-jerk reaction appears to be similar to "rolfwind" above "full of shit" - however once we begin to dig into the issue a little it becomes apparent that the intellectual dishonesty/deception (as discussed in the first linked article) has worked way to persuade people who really should know better and be capable of much better critical thinking about this most important issue that affects us all.

Re:public-private partnership

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is a great blog by journalist Sigrun Davidsdottir about the Icelandic banking crisis for those interested in knowing more about the issue.

Re:public-private partnership

[HungryHobo]

"Why? Because it was advertised everywhere that IceSave was a solid bank with a triple A rating."

Out of interest have the rating agencies in question been sued into the ground for giving stunningly bad advice yet?

Re:public-private partnership

[HungryHobo]

You can choose to actually read.

the constitutional council's weekly meetings are broadcast live not only on the council's website, but on the social network as well. 'It is possible to register through other means, but most of the discussion takes place via Facebook,'

the material is available through their own website and other means as well, they're simply using facebook as one of the channels by which people can get information and discuss the matter.

Which is perfectly reasonable.

Re:public-private partnership

[Anonymous Coward]

"2) Iceland *did* pump significant money into their banks -- nearly a year's worth of GDP as loans. However, they did it *after* the banks went into receivership. This let them fully bail out their own citizens while not fully bailing out the citizens of other countries who invested. This is actually the basis for the legal case against them."

Citizenship was not basis for the 'discrimination', so the legal case is already lost.

Re:public-private partnership

[daem0n1x]

Needless to say, people/countries that don't pay back debts won't find a lot of investment dollars going their way. That's the price of walking away.

Who said we want dollars? Are you still living in the 80s?

Re:public-private partnership

[EsbenMoseHansen]

Actually, I believe Facebook offer the conversation via. XMPP, so you might be able to use a common chat-client as well. (I know this is true for personal chats, dunno about whatever they use).

Re:public-private partnership

[Anonymous Coward]

They got away with giving subprime alt-A virtual collateralized mortgage bullshit bonds a triple A rating (the same rating they give to US Treasury bonds!). Why would they get punished for this?

I am surprised that people keep listening to them, though.

Re:public-private partnership

[imroy]

"Reliance" is an extreme way to view this situation. Iceland is communicating with its citizens where they are.

What about the one third of citizens who aren't there (on Facebook)? Are they now essentially second-class citizens as far as this council is concerned? They're encouraging people to sign up to a foreign, third-party, commercial service in order to participate in their own government. That just isn't right to me.

Re:public-private partnership

[Jookey]

What exactly is it that banks make? All I see banks doing is pushing little pieces of paper around and then patting themselves on the back as if they contributed to the economy. Cars, fuel, pens, and paper all have utility. Debt instruments provide no utility.

Re:public-private partnership

[HungryHobo]

you're the only one making up these delusions about monopolies.

facebook is one of the ways you can get the information, it's so convenient for the purpose for most people that most of the people taking advantage of the service are doing so through facebook.

you're perfectly free to drag your lazy ass cursor up to the address bar and drag your chubby chettos encrusted fingers to keyboard and type in the address of their actual website and you'll get the information, you just won't be able to see the comments posted by people on facebook... or the comments of people who mailed/emailed in their views.... or the people who phoned in.... or the people who turned up to public meetings on the subject.

it will be hard for you anyway poor thing what with your reading and comprehension problems.

Re:public-private partnership

[arisvega]

Iceland has set a shining example

It has, but Greece (mentioned in your linked article) cannot follow Iceland's example without dumping the euro; as long as it is its national currency, Greece does not get to inflate it or tweak any other of its parameters. Plus Greece has next to nothing production and exports, so not much of value there either. Take the euro and the EU credibility away, and there will be nobody willing to invest in Greece.

Re:public-private partnership

[GameboyRMH]

When am I going to get out of this mod point dry spell?

Re:public-private partnership

[_Sprocket_]

The issue isn't corporations or commerce. It is control. Pens, paper, and fuel are all commodity items that are (within reason) interchangeable. Cars and laptop computers are a little more unique compared to the previous list. However, there are still aspects of commodity - a Ford car can server much the same function as a BMW same as a Dell laptop can serve in place of a HP. Once I purchase said commodity, the deal is done. I own and control it and can make use of it in any manner I see fit. Telephone systems are an interesting animal. They tend to be monopolies - either Gov't run or Gov't granted. And a large part of that is the logistical difficulty in laying down network medium in the physical world. But even then, the modern age has seen a drive to introduce competition among land-line carriers and mobile phone networks. In short, your list does not compare apples to apples.

Again - the real issue is control. We have an amazing communications network using a multitude of open protocols that enable anyone with a modest budget to participate. And we're increasingly using this open communications network as merely a means to access a proprietary network; facebook. The attraction to Facebook is that the barrier to entry is even less than using other open protocols. But the reality is that one has no control over the services offered in that network nor how your information is used once it is made available to that network. And let's be frank - Facebook is not the common carrier that the phone companies were. Facebook exists to deliver your information (that you provide and can be gleaned by what you provide) to advertisers and anyone else who have interest in your information.

You can bet that there would be an outcry from Iceland officials if a US Federal agents' dragnet collected information involving this constitutional reform activity. We've already seen how it works with Twitter and the Fed's pursuit of Wikileaks. Why would Iceland continue to trust, much less encourage, more activity within the uncontrolled confines of yet another proprietary network?

There is a choice. There is a wide open network on which numerous well-tested and very functional open protocols exist that can be managed with even the meager budget that Iceland is likely to command. They could have access to a wide audience, control their own service, and control their own information. Yet they chose to pander to a corporation's private marketing machine.

Re:public-private partnership

[FriendlyLurker]

What you say is true (they would have to exit euro zone) - however the immediate benefits that would bring to Greece + the disadvantage of having a difficult time attracting foreign investment for some undetermined period be worse than auctioning off all public assets and assuming the corporate financial sectors insurmountable debt (i.e. a debt unrepayable by Greece, ever)? The linked article (and see my other post in this thread from Nobel prize winner's take) appear to be making a pretty convincing case based on hard evidence that it is the lesser of two evils for Greece (and Ireland, Portugal) to take. I have yet to see credible counter arguments, but not for lack of searching. By credible I mean not Financial sector shills repeating half truths and the "Intellectual Dishonesty" being outlines in the link... of which there are more than plenty. Which may not be surprising considering that the US Financial industry could lose 100 billion or so if Greece defaults, apparently (see first post after analysis here).

Re:public-private partnership

[digitig]

But the reality is that one has no control over the services offered in that network nor how your information is used once it is made available to that network.

But why does that matter? If Facebook ceased to offer the services required for this consultation it would be cheap and relatively simple to move the discussion elsewhere.

You can bet that there would be an outcry from Iceland officials if a US Federal agents' dragnet collected information involving this constitutional reform activity.

And you think that's a Facebook issue? This is a public consultation. Do you really think there's nobody in Iceland who would give US Federal agents all the information on the consultation that they required for a very modest fee in terms of US Federal agent's budgets, whatever the medium of the discussions? Or that US Federal agents would have too much difficulty in posing as an Icelandic citizen in order to get access to the discussion, whatever the medium of the discussion? If the USA doesn't already have a registered participant in these discussions, it's because they don't want to.

Re:public-private partnership

[arisvega]

It is plausible that there will be several short-term benefits for Greece if it bails out from the eurozone- most people will appear to become richer for a couple of weeks or months, but that will be all. But there are two main issues with it;

Issue one is that the lack of production and exports, and the persistent motive in the Greek collective subconcious to become an early-retired, irresponsible, insensitive and indifferent fat-paycheck public sector employee under a nebulous government department that demands to get paid for doing nothing at everybody else's expense, will in the (not so long) longrun reset Greece to the way it is today, with the added difference that it will be not be part of the eurozone anymore. So international credibility will go down even further

Issue two is that at least in people's minds, failed Greece = failed eurozone; so fingers can be pointed at the credibility of the eurozone and the euro in general, and the EU does not want that- "bailing out" Greece is the lesser of two evils.

Final point; IMHO the only way is a halfway meeting between authorities and people; authorities should not lend out blindly, on the hopes of making a quick buck, and should not put together countries like Germany and Romania demanding that they stay on the same pace (and acting surprised when they do not). People should be educated, act responsibly in their jobs and not try to make a quick buck out of other people and from authorities (and act surprised when their dodgy plan collapses).

Re:public-private partnership

[Anonymous Coward]

The article you link to does not support your assertion that Iceland rejected "never-ending corporate control."

What it does support is Iceland rejecting never-ending economic control by foreign governments such as the United Kingdom, because those governments made promises they expected Iceland to keep.

Iceland's decision is a resounding no-brainer regardless of where on the political spectrum you are:

* For the right, there is the idea that most of the money lost in the Icebank debacle was sunk in the United Kingdom, NOT in Iceland, so why should Iceland be forced to pay for money they never saw?

* For the left, there are obvious parallels to the war reparations foisted upon Germany at the conclusion of World War I; that didn't turn out well.

* And for those on neither side and who don't have their head up their asses, there is the understanding that there is simply no way Iceland could organize its economy to pay back the United Kingdom, short of a regime so brutal it would make former Eastern bloc dictators blush.

The one thing sorely lacking in your treatise is a valid link to your thesis of "lol corporations fault"

Re:public-private partnership

[Anonymous Coward]

The older vehicles, before the global Reaganite stealing of public industries, were even built by public employees.

Maybe at the turn of the 20th century governments were still building stagecoaches in-house. But the idea that the United States or any of its States were happily building motor vehicles themselves is simply wrong as fact. Reagan had nothing to do with "stealing this public industry" because it was NEVER THERE.

For postal votes, we still have the public postal system.

And any day now, they will deliver the last set of votes and Dewey can finally defeat Truman. :)

Actually, the USPS is a fairly decent postal system all things considered. It has gotten better ever since it was turned into a government-sponsored enterprise (basically a public/private hybrid, don't ask me, I don't know); back when it was a government department it was a haven of political patronage. And with the exception of very isolated locales like Diomede, Alaska (if Palin lived there, she could see Russia) and Palau (tiny Pacific island, technically its own nation but we got suckered into running its post office), a letter only takes a day or two to arrive at its destination, for less than the price of a can of soda.

That isn't to say the USPS is immune to institutional problems. For an example of the USPS's future, look at Canada Post today.

Some things government can do better and more efficiently than private industry. Justice systems and roads are one example. Building cars is not one example.

Re:public-private partnership

[_Sprocket_]

But the reality is that one has no control over the services offered in that network nor how your information is used once it is made available to that network.

But why does that matter? If Facebook ceased to offer the services required for this consultation it would be cheap and relatively simple to move the discussion elsewhere.

If it's cheap, why not set up one's own environment and control all data and meta-data while further reducing the possibility of disruption or mis-use?

You can bet that there would be an outcry from Iceland officials if a US Federal agents' dragnet collected information involving this constitutional reform activity.

And you think that's a Facebook issue? This is a public consultation. Do you really think there's nobody in Iceland who would give US Federal agents all the information on the consultation that they required for a very modest fee in terms of US Federal agent's budgets, whatever the medium of the discussions? Or that US Federal agents would have too much difficulty in posing as an Icelandic citizen in order to get access to the discussion, whatever the medium of the discussion? If the USA doesn't already have a registered participant in these discussions, it's because they don't want to.

I think it's unlikely that the US Government has any interest in Iceland's constitutional reforms. Let's not get caught up in the minutia of the example. It is simply an example of control. If data, meta-data, and services exist on my own infrastructure (even if I'm renting that infrastructure) I have much better control and understanding of what is being done with it. Reliance on a 3rd party, especially one that has already shown a willingness to play fast and loose with service and data, seems to be a considerable step backwards. Especially when alternatives exist.

Re:public-private partnership

[DerekLyons]

I guess "reliance on large private corporations for operation of and participation in government" is going to be part of the new constitution?

It's pretty much been that way since the invention of the telephone, the printing press/mass media, etc... etc...

Re:public-private partnership

[digitig]

But the reality is that one has no control over the services offered in that network nor how your information is used once it is made available to that network.

But why does that matter? If Facebook ceased to offer the services required for this consultation it would be cheap and relatively simple to move the discussion elsewhere.

If it's cheap, why not set up one's own environment and control all data and meta-data while further reducing the possibility of disruption or mis-use?

What would be cheap is switching to another conferencing system, not rolling their own. Why bother rolling their own?

I think it's unlikely that the US Government has any interest in Iceland's constitutional reforms. Let's not get caught up in the minutia of the example. It is simply an example of control. If data, meta-data, and services exist on my own infrastructure (even if I'm renting that infrastructure) I have much better control and understanding of what is being done with it. Reliance on a 3rd party, especially one that has already shown a willingness to play fast and loose with service and data, seems to be a considerable step backwards. Especially when alternatives exist.

I think it's unlikely too. It wasn't me that raised it. My point was simply that for a public discussion the supposed problems with Facebook are irrelevant. Why bother going for a system with more control when you don't need more control and most people are already using this system?

Re:public-private partnership

[Hazel Bergeron]

No. The privilegium to publish in much of Europe was initially centrally controlled by the Holy Roman Empire - it took centuries to reach a privately controlled rather than government-regulated presses. Most national telecoms providers were owned by the people until taken from them in the great dismantling of society which occurred in the '80s. During the same period we also saw the break-up of union influence in the presses (see Battle of Wapping) which finally brought the major presses in the UK into outright private corporation control.

Re:public-private partnership

[Tsingi]

you're the only one making up these delusions about monopolies.

facebook is one of the ways you can get the information, it's so convenient for the purpose for most people that most of the people taking advantage of the service are doing so through facebook.

you're perfectly free to drag your lazy ass cursor up to the address bar and drag your chubby chettos encrusted fingers to keyboard and type in the address of their actual website and you'll get the information, you just won't be able to see the comments posted by people on facebook... or the comments of people who mailed/emailed in their views.... or the people who phoned in.... or the people who turned up to public meetings on the subject.

it will be hard for you anyway poor thing what with your reading and comprehension problems.

I'm pretty sure the point was that discussion on Facebook is not public, which you seem to have reiterated while presumptuously berating the messenger.

Facebook is not an appropriate venue for discussing things public, Facebook is not public. Facebook is a private network (regardless of how chubby or "chetto" encrusted your fingers are.)

Should Facebook be allowed to decide whether or not you have access to public discussions? I think not.

Re:public-private partnership

[PopeRatzo]

What about the one third of citizens who aren't there (on Facebook)? Are they now essentially second-class citizens as far as this council is concerned?

Did you read the article?

Here:

Two thirds of Icelandâ(TM)s population (approximately 320,000) is on Facebook, so the constitutional councilâ(TM)s weekly meetings are broadcast live not only on the councilâ(TM)s website, but on the social network as well.

You can participate in other ways besides Facebook. So there will not be "second class citizens" because of this decision.

Re:public-private partnership

[_Sprocket_]

I think it's unlikely too. It wasn't me that raised it. My point was simply that for a public discussion the supposed problems with Facebook are irrelevant. Why bother going for a system with more control when you don't need more control and most people are already using this system?

If one doesn't need control - why do it? The information and channel have value. If there is no value, then the Icelandic Government is playing games with those who think that they are genuinely participating in reform. If it does have value, then basic steps to ensure that the channel exists and the information collected is handled properly is well worth the small cost of establishing it. Not supporting a company who's sole purpose is to abuse that exchange of information might also be a good step as is not forcing participation in that system to be a part of reform.

Re:public-private partnership

[digitig]

If one doesn't need control - why do it?

Not everybody is obsessed with being in control all of the time.

The information and channel have value. If there is no value, then the Icelandic Government is playing games with those who think that they are genuinely participating in reform.

The information has value, so yes, the Icelandic government should take care to ensure that it is retained independently of whatever channel they use. It's called taking backups. That's not a Facebook issue. The existence of a channel has value, but it's pretty much irrelevant what the channel is; the main criterion is ease of access for the users. It's a cheap commodity item, and if Facebook didn't provide the channel they could use another channel. The existing userbase has value too, which is in Facebook's favour.

Not supporting a company who's sole purpose is to abuse that exchange of information might also be a good step as is not forcing participation in that system to be a part of reform.

I suspect that's your only real objection, and even that depends on what you consider to be "abuse". After all, didn't you say that the channel had value?

Re:public-private partnership

[Rei]

Perhaps not technically, but given that the Icelandic branches were rolled into Nýi Landsbanki, which was then fully capitalized, while the overseas assets were left to rot, I think it's safe to say that 99% of the people who got fully bailed out were Icelandic citizens.

Re:public-private partnership

[Paladeen]

You, sir, make some excellent points.

Re:public-private partnership

[_Sprocket_]

If one doesn't need control - why do it?

Not everybody is obsessed with being in control all of the time.

This is less about being obsessed with control and more about ensuring one's efforts aren't disrupted.

The information has value, so yes, the Icelandic government should take care to ensure that it is retained independently of whatever channel they use. It's called taking backups. That's not a Facebook issue. The existence of a channel has value, but it's pretty much irrelevant what the channel is; the main criterion is ease of access for the users. It's a cheap commodity item, and if Facebook didn't provide the channel they could use another channel. The existing userbase has value too, which is in Facebook's favour.

This is, in fact, a Facebook issue. You better believe any channel I set up would include routine backups. And I would expect anything existing on owned architecture to offer fewer restrictions than Facebook.

Changing between channels is disruptive. It is much better to have a set channel once and continue using it. That's why we have niggling little things like domain names that we control no matter where or what hosts it. If you control of a channel, you can alter the underlying details at will. I do agree that communication is a cheap commodity item. And it's a cheap commodity item that someone like a state government should be able to provide on their own without piggybacking on some proprietary 3rd party's "free" service.

Although - the existing user base is a fair point. But at the same time, I find it hard to believe that the existing user base is so important to creating a community for Government business. Are we really claiming that Iceland can't convince its citizens to contribute without involving their Facebook account?

I suspect that's your only real objection, and even that depends on what you consider to be "abuse". After all, didn't you say that the channel had value?

No - those other objections are also real. Just to drive home the point - I would scoff at Iceland inviting comments by providing the email address "icelandpm99@aol.com" as well.

Of course I said it has value. Facebook is about providing a platform for people to give them data (and much more than many realized). That data is sold. I find it questionable whether that behavior has any value to Iceland or any other governmental body.

Re:public-private partnership

[HungryHobo]

as opposed to discussion on private phone company lines, discussion in letters sent through private mail carriers, discussions held in private or public venues which just happen to be in physical locations where lots of people are too far away from.

facebook is a private network like the phone network and it's only one of the ways you can access the same info.

I don't even like facebook and I can see these guys are morons.

Re:public-private partnership

[Paladeen]

As an Icelander who follows things at home quite closely, I'm telling you you're in for a disappointment. Things are not going well.

Unemployment is still high, about 7.5%. Our currency has fallen (and we live with currency controls), so wages here are now among the lowest in the OECD (software engineers now earn about 400000 ISK/month, ~2000 GBP, before income tax (38.5%)) and the prices of imported goods has skyrocketed (and we import almost everything). The price of our exports go up, so the large fishing companies and their owners benefit, and Iceland's government gets foreign currency to pay off its huge and debilitating foreign debt (interest payments alone amount to about 1/4 of government income).

Almost all household debt in the country is price-indexed (!!! -- an almost unique situation). E.g. the war in Libya increased oil prices == more expensive gasoline, which raises the Icelandic CPI and so everyone's loans go up. It's a crazy system. Many Icelanders struggle under overbearing debt, which can only become worse.

To put it bluntly, Iceland's financial woes have been very firmly placed on the working people of the country. Just because we refused to pay the Icesave debt, it doesn't mean that everything is well. A

Re:public-private partnership

[Tsingi]

Which is the point, it isn't public.

Re:public-private partnership

[PopeRatzo]

Unemployment is still high, about 7.5%

Wow, I wish that would get our unemployment rate in the US to 7.5%. And you're complaining?

The main thing is that you were able to tell the bankers to go scratch and your country did not fall into a black hole, as we were told would happen if we let our bankers go down.

Those TARP bailouts were the biggest scam in history. Literally, the biggest scam in history. We made the bankers whole to the tune of 100 cents on the dollar, just because. The same way we were told that Saddam Hussein would drop nukes on us if we didn't invade Iraq, we were told the world would end if we didn't make the bankers completely whole. Not 80 cents on the dollar, no negotiated settlement to get them through the rough patch, but it had to be a 100 percent bailout or else...well, I guess it's just "or else".

Count your blessings, my Icelandic friend. People are still eating there. In fact, they're making more than about 60 percent of Americans. And you are still a free people.

We are not.

Your future is still full of possibilities. Ours is not. We are headed toward a long, if shallow, depression. Nothing short of a world war will turn America's fortunes around.

As soon as my daughter graduates, we're moving to Montenegro. That's how bad it is here in the 'States.

Re:public-private partnership

[EsbenMoseHansen]

At it's core, banks acts as intermediates between people who have a (temporary) excess of money and people who has a temporary deficit of money. This gains the people with excess 2 things: 1) safe (relatively) storage of money and 2) a (modest) rent for the money. For the people with temporary deficits, this allows them to cover this deficit, allowing e.g. at factory owner to pay wages before the manufactured goods are sold.

Originally, banks only provided the "safe storage" part, while today they also handle various other services, including stock trading, currency exchange and counselling.

(I have no affiliation with banks, except as a minor customer)

Re:public-private partnership

[Rei]

Excepting the cause for the collapse, the Icelandic banking crisis was nothing like the US banking crisis. The fact that so many people here keep pretending like they're the same situation is ridiculous. US banks weren't getting the overwhelming majority of their deposits from other countries, due to a tiny domestic economy and huge international market. The US didn't bail out their own people (the funding of Nýi Landsbanki) while leaving the other countries' citizens to rot, thus starting an international financial conflict with a long-time rival (the UK), plus the Netherlands. The US isn't integrated into a close economic union (the EU) with said nonexistant rivals. And on and on

The question of whether or not to bail out the US banks hinged on whether or not all capital to US (and to a lesser extent, world) industries would basically disappear overnight; "Yes" means you temporarily take on moderate (proportional) debt, almost all of which will be recouped, while "No" means investment capital disappears. The question of whether or not to fully bail out the Icelandic banks hinged on whether or not to start a huge international legal squabble with other nations; "Yes" means you take on decades of crippling debt (most of which will *not* be recouped), "No" means you start an international legal battle and could ultimately have it forced on you anyway.

The situations were NOT the same.

Re:public-private partnership

[imroy]

My concern is the quote "It is possible to register through other means, but most of the discussion takes place via Facebook". It sounds like non-FB-using citizens can still watch the weekly meetings and ask questions via email, or even snail-mail. But if most of the discussions are taking place on FB, how much attention will the non-FBer's get? That sounds to me very much like they'll be effectively second-class citizens as far as this discussion is concerned.

Re:public-private partnership

[HungryHobo]

which isn't a problem in any way shape or form since it's not the only forum where people can discuss the matter and get the information.

It's not got a monopoly on anything, it is however well suited to the use people are putting it to.

People can send in their opinions over private networks, they're perfectly free to, and there is zero problem with that.
They may use private mail carriers, they may use private phone networks and they may use other websites.

If facebook was the only way to discuss this and had a monopoly I'd be agreeing with you but it doesn't.
It just happens to be a good tool for the job.

Re:public-private partnership

[PopeRatzo]

Excepting the cause for the collapse, the Icelandic banking crisis was nothing like the US banking crisis.

"Excepting the cause"? The "cause" is everything.

industries would basically disappear overnight; "Yes" means you temporarily take on moderate (proportional) debt, almost all of which will be recouped, while "No" means investment capital disappears.

You believe that everything just stops because investment capital disappears?

You have a very low opinion of humanity, friend.

Do you also believe it was necessary to make the investment bankers whole by 100 cents on the dollar? You don't think they could have muddled through with something less? That some shareholder, somewhere, might have lost a few percent of his investment and still managed to soldier on?

The will of the people

[bit trollent]

Iceland's new official currency is the bjork.

By the way, fix unicode character support.

Re:The will of the people

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on people, this is embarrassing.

How can Slashdot not handle such a basic task as international character support?

Re:The will of the people

[Anonymous Coward]

Testing... åäö

Re:The will of the people

[Rei]

I don't know what you tried to type, but the the Icelandic thorn doesn't show up.

Re:The will of the people

[Rei]

You know, Björk doesn't exactly dominate their music scene any more. At least upgrade your "Stereotypical Íslensk Band" meme to Sigur Rós ;)

Re:The will of the people

[Foobar of Borg]

Come on people, this is embarrassing.

How can Slashdot not handle such a basic task as international character support?

Especially considering the number of times the look and interface has changed. You would think in 2011 they could sort of throw that in. I know the site is an English language site. But, even when posts are in English, you may occasionally need to use one o' them thar' furrin' werds.

Farcebook

[Spad]

'It is possible to register through other means, but most of the discussion takes place via Facebook,' said Berghildur Bernhardsdottir

Because we thought it would be fun to actively discourage 1/3 of our population from being involved in the discussion...

Re:Farcebook

[Grygus]

'It is possible to register through other means, but most of the discussion takes place via Facebook,' said Berghildur Bernhardsdottir

Because we thought it would be fun to actively discourage 1/3 of our population from being involved in the discussion...

If 2/3 of the population is using one platform, couldn't that automatically mean that most of the discussion would take place there, regardless of anyone's wishes? I think you may be seeing an agenda where there is only acceptance of reality.

Re:Farcebook

[DNS-and-BIND]

Hey, the politicians and all their friends use facebook, which means everyone uses facebook. Besides, disenfranchising the lower 1/3 of society is OK, they never have anything interesting to say. Bunch of fucking rednecks (yes, Iceland has their analogue).

Re:Farcebook

[Khenke]

For me it is way better to "actively discourage 1/3 of our population from being involved in the discussion" than close to 100%.

My government (Swedish) don't give a rats ass about what I think or the rest of the population. It is actively making almost every citizen a criminal with new laws that only serve US corporations, it is actively helping US spy on it's citizen (breaking many laws in the process), it is taking away our rights, our courts are breaking constitutional laws without any reprimands. Our Secretary of State was involved (board member if my memory serve me right) in a company that have done mass murders in Africa in the hunt for oil.

An I know most western governments are going down this road to hell.

And how would they communicate instead? Via a custom build forum that none uses? To get feedback from 2/3 of the population is probably the most ANY government in history have done.

Iceland and Norway are the only two (as far as I know) countries in the west that are not going strait to being a police state. And yes, I have thought of migrating as I don't at all like the express road to hell we are on. In 50 years we will have history classes in school where the students will ask why no one cared or did anything (like what happened in Germany around WW2).

Yeah, I hate Facebook as much (or more) than anybody else, but if the devils tool can be used to stop the trip to hell, I'm all for it.

Re:Farcebook

[AmiMoJo]

As opposed to most places that actively discourage 90% of the population from being involved in the discussion.

If they can show that people's opinions and ideas actually count it would be a major step forward for democracy, as important as the universal vote IMHO.

Re:Farcebook

[QuasiSteve]

If 2/3 of the population is using one platform, couldn't that automatically mean that most of the discussion would take place there, regardless of anyone's wishes?

Oh absolutely - the majority of the discussion would be on the (social) platform that people largely use.

However:

I think you may be seeing an agenda where there is only acceptance of reality.

The reality of the matter is that while 2/3rds of Iceland's population may have a facebook account, the Icelandic government is still, will, a government.

And when a government says "It is possible to register through other means, but most of the discussion takes place via Facebook", alarm bells should be going off to understand that what they're actually saying is: "you can also write us an e-mail, or a letter, or call us - but we're going to either A. ignore you or B. ask you to participate in our discussions at Facebook".

And that sets dangerous precedent.

If it were merely a "We set up a facebook account, friend us and join the discussion, which we're also feeding to officialsite.government.is along with discussions on twitter, flickr (insert other services popular with the Icelandic population) and the official forum", it'd be a different story.

Re:Farcebook

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

At least the 10% who participate in the old ways would know what protections they have about free speech. And they will be sure no private company would be able to data mine, who influenced whom and find the real source of ideas that shift the power to the people instead of vested interests and "take care of them".

Re:Farcebook

[dargaud]

Hey, the politicians and all their friends use facebook, which means everyone uses facebook. Besides, disenfranchising the lower 1/3 of society is OK, they never have anything interesting to say. Bunch of fucking rednecks (yes, Iceland has their analogue).

I don't know about Iceland, but in Italy every bum on the street has a cell phone, given to them by the various non-profits that follow them. So the 1/3 who is not connected either doesn't speak the language, is older than combustion engines, hasn't yet mastered the use of its sphincter or is fucking retarded. No loss there.

Re:Farcebook

[Foobar of Borg]

Bunch of fucking rednecks (yes, Iceland has their analogue).

Well, to be fair, *every* country has its analogue.

Re:Farcebook

[TheoMurpse]

As opposed to what? Rolling a new system that has ZERO userbase? Facebook is free for everyone; there are no barriers to participation.

Re:Farcebook

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny comment, but seriously, has any constitutional discussion ever involved (potentially) 2/3rds of the population before? OK, there are referendums to approve a new constitution or not, but to involve 2/3rds of the people in that discussion is *way* more than any other I'm aware of.

Oh, and as the comment you replied to said, it's "most" of the discussion not all of it.

Re:Farcebook

[ricky-road-flats]

Funny comment, but seriously, has any constitutional discussion ever involved (potentially) 2/3rds of the population before? OK, there are referendums to approve a new constitution or not, but to involve 2/3rds of the people in that discussion is *way* more than any other I'm aware of. Or to put it another way, why would you exclude a communication forum that 2/3rds of your population have access to?

Oh, and as the comment you replied to said, it's "most" of the discussion - not all of it.

Re:Farcebook

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a way to communicate. People don't choose 'talking' just to leave out deaf people.

They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

They will never get this right I'm afraid, but if they did, they would enshrine:

Freedom of contract
Private property
No State monopoly on security / police
No State monopoly on Law
No State monopoly on courts
No State money creation
No State theft of resources (Taxation)
No State $illigitimate_liberty_sapping_function

etc.

To give you an idea of the mentality of these people, did you know that Home Education is ILLEGAL in Iceland?

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

Yet another country where the people have been reduced to the level of property; the property of the State. Any nation of people that allows the State to outlaw Home Education at its core, doesn't understand what a constitution is for, and cannot possibly create a free society based on one.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[mikael_j]

You seem to read a lot into the issue of legality of homeschooling and I can't help but think that you are very biased.

On one hand I do believe homeschooling should be legal but on the other hand I realize that there are some serious problems with homeschooling and depending on the state of your country's public school system it may very well make sense to mandate that all children must go to public schools for both their own good as well as the good of the population in general.

Similar arguments can also be made about private schools, especially those directly connected to political or religious organizations.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

I am biased; I'm biased towards freedom.

The State doesn't have the right to mandate that individuals do anything, including attend a State run school.

If you concede that the State has this right, then you are explicitly saying that the State is the ultimate parent of all children, trumping the rights of parents, and that they are the owners of all children. Clearly, as a moral person, you cannot be for one group of people owning another group; thats called slavery. The same goes for conscription and all other predations of the State; they are all fundamentally immoral, and decent, non violent people are not for them.

There are no 'serious problems' with Home Schooling if you understand what rights are and where they come from, the proper role of government, and you are not a violent collectivist, that believes that you own a quotal share in other people's children and their property.

Of course, there really are people who believe that children are the property of society, but they are most definitely evil in my book.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you think leaving children's education completely in the hands of their parents is any better? Are children citizens (or citizens-to-be), or are they their parents' chatel to brainwash any way they please? Is it really okay to abandon millions of children to the ignorance dictated by their parents?

You lie in your summary: home education is not outlawed, it is ALWAYS legal in the west. It is simply not always acknowledged as an adequate substitute for the education that society also wants to provide. Go ahead and teach your kids whatever you like - Linear Algebra or advanced cthonian literature, fairy tales about Jesus riding dinosaurs, advanced quantum mechanics, how the free market will save their souls, or that the Earth is really flat - but they get to hear what the rest of society says, too.

I learned to read and write at home. I also learned all my math up to Calculus at home, as well as more Classical (Greek, Roman, and Persian) literature than most pre-collegiate schools will ever touch. I also went to school in the United States - because no two people can hope to provide the adequate breadth of knowledge and experience that a growing child needs, unless they truly want to damn the child to being a carbon copy of them, stuck in beliefs and understands that are at least a generation stale.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[mikael_j]

I didn't want to call you a libertarian fruitcake but honestly, you seem confused.

In any parliamentary democracy the state is, at least technically, an agent of the people appointed by the people to run the affairs of the people on a national and international level.

Thus if the people support a ban on homeschooling then they are likely to support politicians who also support a ban on homeschooling.

Also, "violent collectivist" and a little rant about owning "a quotal share in other people's children and their property". Is the violent collectivist bit about how you hate taxes? Because if so I've heard the full version of that disjointed rant more than once from impressionable freshman economics students...

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if so I've heard the full version of that disjointed rant more than once from impressionable freshman economics students...

And? What does this have to do with anything?

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Mindcontrolled]

Ah, look at that, how cute. A culturless randroid fuckwit from the colonies thinking THEY invented sliced bread lecturing one of the oldest democracies on earth how things are done. If your understanding of the world is an indication for the quality of home schooling you are proposing, I think Iceland is doing quite right by outlawing it.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxes are agreed upon collectively thus they are evil (and "collectivist"!).

If you don't pay taxes and ignore all other attempts of the government to get your tax money eventually cops will show up, they have guns, thus they are violent.

There we have "violent collectivists" which are apparently evil.

Libertian Rant - The Cliff's Notes edition
please pad to at least four pages before use

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

You need to explain how it happens that people can lose their rights by dint of a vote. All you have done is recited the State line of 'Parliament represents the people, therefore it is legitimate'. No vote by other men can take the rights of another group of men away from them. If you agree with this, then you agree that slavery is fine, until people vote and say it is not.

I hate violent people, and people who cannot think. For them, there is always a video nowadays:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs

If one wants to completely and logically justify the state, and its evils, one has to do better than reciting what was taught by rote in a government school.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Anonymous Coward]

yah man, it's all a conspiracy, the teachers are part of the machine that keeps the only true way, your way, from being the way of everyone.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Kjella]

No State monopoly on security / police

If any private party can claim police power, they can also claim the right to search your property and papers. Oh, and any complaint of illegal searches would go to the same system. That's the end of the 4th amendment.

No State monopoly on Law
No State monopoly on courts

I guess you don't believe much in the "with liberty and justice for all" thing. I'd rather not be hauled before a kangaroo court or get no protection if I have no protection money, thank you very much.

No State theft of resources (Taxation)

Without income, there's no public services whatsoever. Go to Somalia or some other anarchist state if that's your ideal society.

Yet another country where the people have been reduced to the level of property; the property of the State.

There are equally bad or worse fates, like being the property of your parents. Children are not pets and even pets have laws against animal cruelty. Any state that lets children grow up with no minimum standard of education is neglecting that child and its human rights. They may be your offspring but they are not your prisoner - physically, intellectually or otherwise. If I was to use as much hyperbole as you, I'd say you demand the right to brainwash your children. My country, Norway, has also outlawed home schooling but there are private schools like Montessori or Waldorf education. They have to document a competent staff, their plans and methods of teaching and adherence to minimum guidelines set forth by the government. And I think it's a good thing, YMMV.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[MacTO]

There is no such thing as absolute freedom, yet the is the negotiating of rights. Done properly, you can maximize the freedom of people. You will also find that very few of those negotiated rights will be universal because every culture brings their own values to the table.

Take your example of the child. You, and perhaps the country to which you belong, probably have a strong sense of paternal authority. Yet other people would strongly disagree with your assertion, equating that paternal authority to a form of slavery that society must work to overcome. After all, to leave the child enslaved to the individual is fundamentally immoral.

Of course, there really are people who believe that children are the property of the father, but they are most definitely evil in my book.

NOTE: I don't agree with everything that I just said, though I do see them as acceptable viewpoints. And that's what public consultation processes are about, collecting those perspectives and trying to compile them into something coherent. Without that consultation, those negotiations, you are essentially ruling by fiat/ideology/whatever and denying the freedom of others. The fact that Iceland is using Facebook to do so is interesting, but it may work out in this case (regardless of your opinion on handing over control to a major, foreign, corporation) because Iceland is a tiny nation with a relatively homogenous population.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Anonymous Coward]

Home schooling is child abuse. Children have a right to access to the accumulated knowledge of a society and parents do not have a right to block that access.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[azalin]

Whenever I read stuff like this, I feel deeply sorry for the USA.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

Why do you think leaving children's education completely in the hands of their parents is any better?

Wether its better or not is a red herring. This is about the principle of who gets to control you, you, or the State. What your opinion about what should or should not be learned by anyone is your opinion and your business, and you should be free to live by your own opinions. What you think should not be forced down the throat of anyone. If you think otherwise then you are a violent character, and should just admit it and be done. What I find endlessly fascinating is how people who think like that and who are violent, claim to not only not be violent, but they simultaneously claim that the have the best interests of other people at heart. That is a supreme and total delusion of the first order.

You don't have any right to force other people to learn what you have learned in the way that you have learned it. What parents do with their children is not your business, nor it is the business of the State. You do not own a share in other people's children. Roll on the empty arguments about, "I have to pay for those children when they cant do $modern_necessity for themselves" its red herring, faulty reasoning all the way down, and no excuse for the violence all the brainwashed collectivist dupes bray for.

If you are for the State controlling you, then you have no business saying that the state has no right to interfere with and regulate the internet, or anything else that you might believe the State should not have anything to do with, including banning books and speech. You cant have it both ways; you cant be a little bit pregnant. Either you are violent or you are not. Either you are for the State, or you are not. Pick one, and then dont dissemble about it. Admit you are violent and move on.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Ice Tiger]

Isn't that Somalia?

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[mwvdlee]

Then you accept that if a homeschooled individual can't find a job or otherwise finds him/herself in trouble, the state has no obligation to care for that person?
Not saying homeschooling is bad, just that authority and responsibility cannot be separated and one has to accept the consequence of changing either.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Mindcontrolled]

In all fairness, it's probably not representative. I spent quite some time working and living in the USA and I never met a single real life randroid like the GP. Probably because they don't leave their basements and are mostly busy posting rants on random internet forums, I guess.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Mindcontrolled]

You won't be getting through to him, mate. You are from Norway, after all, that makes you a socialist by definition. Our randroid friend is probably going through some elaborate ritual cleansing to get off the taint he acquired from reading your post. ;)

The more I hear about your country, btw, the more I consider getting up there, as things seem to go to shit around lately. Well, if you only could relocate the whole act to some place with a decent climate....

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Rei]

Don't look now, but strip clubs are illegal in Iceland, too ;)

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

If any private party can claim police power, they can also claim the right to search your property and papers. Oh, and any complaint of illegal searches would go to the same system. That's the end of the 4th amendment.

False. Private police forces do not claim any rights, they are purely defensive in nature. They defend your property and person, and that is all. They do not act in any way like State police forces. As for the fourth amendment, Uncle Sam has erased that already, through his TSA, US VISIT and the constitution free zone that extends 100 miles into America.

I guess you don't believe much in the "with liberty and justice for all" thing. I'd rather not be hauled before a kangaroo court or get no protection if I have no protection money, thank you very much.

I believe that I should be able to choose the sort of law I want to be bound by in any contract that I enter into. I can already do this in business contracts, so why should I not be able to do this with myself? The way things are now, I am involuntarily bound to courts that I do not agree with. Ask Julian Assange about Kangaroo courts, not having protection money etc. You are not thinking deeply enough about this.

Without income, there's no public services whatsoever. Go to Somalia or some other anarchist state if that's your ideal society.

This is faulty reasoning. First of all, there are no such thing as 'state income'. All of the things the State does are financed by stolen money. That is immoral. Before this state of affairs, America was a hugely prosperous and safe place. There is no need for the state to do all the things it is doing now. Just look at Underwriters Laboratory for an example. This is a commonly held myth; if the State were to disappear, there would be blood running in the streets. No one with any sense or even a little knowledge of history believes that is true.

There are equally bad or worse fates, like being the property of your parents. Children are not pets and even pets have laws against animal cruelty. Any state that lets children grow up with no minimum standard of education is neglecting that child and its human rights. They may be your offspring but they are not your prisoner - physically, intellectually or otherwise.

The question here is wether or not the State should be the parent of all children. I imagine you would concede that someone needs to take care of children, since they cannot take care of themselves. After we accept this, its a matter of who should be responsible for children. Some people who do not understand rights and nature, think that children should be in the care of the State from birth. Others believe that parents are the natural guardians of children.

The difference between these two camps is that the people who think the State should own children are willing to have children violently removed from their families on the slightest pretext, like Home Schooling. The people who are for natural rights are non violent, and do not interfere with other people. This is the acid test; who is the violent one, one who uses force, who is the brainwashed busy body, who will go into other people's homes and kidnap their children? Who is the immoral one?

This is a matter of pure right and wrong and evenly applied logic. Which is why so many people can't grasp these very simple issues.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

Then you accept that if a homeschooled individual can't find a job or otherwise finds him/herself in trouble, the state has no obligation to care for that person?
Not saying homeschooling is bad, just that authority and responsibility cannot be separated and one has to accept the consequence of changing either.

Absolutely. Employment is not the business of the state, wether the person was Home Educated or not. The State cannot have obligations, only people have obligations. States do not have rights, only people have rights:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-Lb8YitPs8

For the record, Home Educated people have a higher rate of employment that the general government schooled population.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Rei]

Wether its better or not is a red herring. This is about the principle of who gets to control you, you, or the State

So should you get to beat your children, too? This isn't an issue of state versus personal freedom, but of whether children are simply the property of their parents or not to do with as they will.

Oh, and by the way?

You cant have it both ways; you cant be a little bit pregnant.

Got it. State shouldn't be able to tell me to do *anything* or impose any force on me for whatever actions I take. Please excuse me, I have to go; this city isn't going to burn itself down.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Mindcontrolled]

Weird, Mr. Randroid, in another post you stated you are not from the US then you go on about the prosperity of the US before the State started to finance itself by "stealing" money. When exactly was this mystical time? The Roanoke colony? As for the "pure right and wrong and applied logic" - I see you are an absolutist, who KNOWS what is right. Great going there, wish we had more of you. On some isolated island, where we could watch your anarchist paradise from far, far away.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[mwvdlee]

According to you, what IS the business of the state?
In your various replies in this thread you seem to be against most things the state does. Did you just forget to mention the rest or are there some things you DO want the state to do?

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

So should you get to beat your children, too? This isn't an issue of state versus personal freedom, but of whether children are simply the property of their parents or not to do with as they will.

No, its a question of wether the State owns children or the parents own them.

Discipline is a matter for the parents, not the State or you. If you have your own children, its up to you to discipline them in a way that is appropriate for them, you made them they are your responsibility and no one else's. Some children can be reasoned with without ever having to lift your hand. Others need a slap. Only the parent can judge what is appropriate, not you, not I, and not some aparatchick from the State.

If that is not the case, then the State is the parent of all children, and can order them to do anything, remove them from their families:

https://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/swedengovernmentseizechildfromhomeschoolfamily

brainwash them in government schools and essentially, do anything they want with them, because there is no one above the State to trump their authority when it comes to protecting them.

Many of the people who talk about 'beating' children and all this other emotive red herring garbage do not have children, do not understand rights and do not understand the proper role of government. When they find out the hard way, i.e. when the State goes after something that they are concerned about (like internet censorship) then they all of a sudden 'get it' and go berserk, without ever making the connection that other people's concerns about State intrusion into their lives are just as valid, and that they share common cause with those people.

Its a pure autistic response; 'only my view of the world is correct; I am the only one that is real, only my concerns are valid and only my rights matter'. No, everyone is real, everyone has the same rights, and attacks on the rights of one person or a set of people is an attack on everyone, no matter what you believe.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

yet the is the negotiating of rights. Done properly, you can maximize the freedom of people.

No. Rights are not negotiated, and they do not come from legislatures, the UN or anywhere else. Rights are born with you, they are limited in number and all stem from property rights.

Take your example of the child. You, and perhaps the country to which you belong, probably have a strong sense of paternal authority. Yet other people would strongly disagree with your assertion, equating that paternal authority to a form of slavery that society must work to overcome. After all, to leave the child enslaved to the individual is fundamentally immoral.

Unbelievable. First of all, I dont belong to any country. Secondly, Paternal authority comes from property rights, and is entirely legitimate. In absentia of that, the State becomes the owner of all children, and it is this that is completely immoral. There is no such thing as 'society' in this case; what you really mean is that a body of 'Social Workers', individuals in charge of children's affairs, are the true owners of children. This is the reality. A small number of State employees with all their prejudices and perversions have absolute power and ownership of all children:

http://www.intermix.org.uk/features/FEA_20_oona.asp

No decent human being thinks that it is correct that a small number of State employees should have absolute power and ownership of all children. It is anathema, revolting and completely wrong.

The slavery you are talking about is actually the slavery of the State forced upon free people. You have it precisely backwards.

Of course, there really are people who believe that children are the property of the father, but they are most definitely evil in my book.

You are free to read and believe that book, as long as you do not try and violently force other people to believe what you believe. I dont have a problem with you brining up your children in any way you see fit. Its your business, not mine and not that of the State.

And that's what public consultation processes

No matte how many people you consult, outlawing redheads is immoral. Consensus cannot confer legitimacy to immorality. It might make you feel good, but its still dead wrong.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

According to you, what IS the business of the state?
In your various replies in this thread you seem to be against most things the state does. Did you just forget to mention the rest or are there some things you DO want the state to do?

What I or anyone thinks the State should do is irrelevant; the State doesn't have the right to steal your money, conscript you into an army for 'national service', steal your land or do any of those things that people are forbidden to do by natural law. 'The State' can exist in any way that it wants, as long as it is bound by the same laws that bind men; no stealing, encroaching on people and their property, etc.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Anonymous Coward]

"Paternal authority comes from property rights, and is entirely legitimate."

No one owns another person, not even one's children. That does not lead to a default ownership of children by the state. No one owns children. The state then ensures that parents cannot do crazy things with their children that it is reasonable to expect the children would object to if they possessed the understanding and rationality entitling adults to a respect for their will. If children were property, they would have no rights, and clearly this is unacceptable to the vast majority of humans. Raising your children as you see fit cannot include killing them, for instance. Yes, it is debatable what those rights of children are, but intervention when those rights are abrogated would seem justified.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

No one owns another person, not even one's children. That does not lead to a default ownership of children by the state.

Your construction is interesting "one's children"; that is a possessive construction, and its one that everyone uses because quite naturally, properly functioning human beings understand that children really do belong to their parents; they are a unique specie of property in that they can be owned, but also have all the rights that human being have, meaning that they are not truly owned as a man owns a dog, but exist in a separate and special category of property that is not found in any other type of property.

Even if we were to agree that 'no one owns children' you have to accept that someone must have authority over them in the form of being a ward or guardian. The question then becomes who is that guardian, and why is that entity the rightful guardian. Its the same problem stated without the emotionally charged phrases.

All human beings have the same rights, no matter what age they are. That means (to refute your straw man) that killing your children, as a parent is wrong. Its not a matter of wether other people think that killing your children is wrong, it is a matter of objective fact that it is wrong.

Intervention when the rights of people are violated is justifiable, but this is not what we are discussing; what we are really discussing is what are rights and where do they come from. Rights do not come from the State, or the collective vote of the majority, or from a constitution or mass opinion or some economic need.

The matter of schooling in all of this is crucial, because it sits at a very tricky locus of relationships, where the state can interpose itself and bamboozle people into believing that it is legitimate, when clearly it is not.

Those countries that claim to be free but which outlaw Home Education are not free at all. The State lays claim to all children, and mandates what they must learn. Those states are even willing to violently kidnap children as they assert their ownership. No one with a working and complete moral center can say that this is right.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[angel'o'sphere]

Any nation of people that allows the State to outlaw Home Education at its core, doesn't understand what a constitution is for, and cannot possibly create a free society based on one.

Rofl ... tell that the endless other countries where home schooling is "illegal". It is really funny from what kinds of "facts" people draw conclusions liek yours ... I'm still out of breath from my rofeling ...

What are you ranting about anyway? It is not like that Iceland has no constitution or is not a demogracy.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Ice Tiger]

Go start a family in a failed state and let me know how that works out for you.

There is nothing stopping you do that if you don't like the country you are living in now.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[angel'o'sphere]

Rights are born with you, they are limited in number and all stem from property rights.

Strictly speaking there is no right to property ...
Property is an artificial concept, if there was no mankind, the term property would not exist.
Sorry, I could say more to your post but it is so confuse, I don't really get what you want to say. For me it seems you want to live in an anarchy whre the only agreement is "people may own things" ...

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[icebraining]

Rights are born with you, they are limited in number and all stem from property rights.

Please prove that property rights are innate.

Secondly, Paternal authority comes from property rights, and is entirely legitimate.

So is child slavery OK as long as the parents agree?

No decent human being thinks that it is correct that a small number of State employees should have absolute power and ownership of all children. It is anathema, revolting and completely wrong.

The ownership of children is revolting and completely wrong (in my opinion) - both by the State or parents.

Children have rights. If the parents are unable or unwilling to provide them, the State empowered by the People should provide them. Education is one of the rights, as decided by consensus.

(Not that I'm against homeschooling; but your argument applies to parents who provide no schooling at all, and I'm against that).

Consensus cannot confer legitimacy to immorality. It might make you feel good, but its still dead wrong.

Please provide the source of the One True Morality. Until then, there is no reason to believe that morality is anything but subjective to each person and therefore such judgments of value are meaningless.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[icebraining]

natural law

Nonsense upon stilts.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

You're laughing because that is the conditioned response to any challenge on your spoon-fed State conditioning. I note that you are from .de ; that tells us all we need to know about your 'education' if we were prone to generalizations:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=home+education+germany

People have been given political asylum after beign forced to flee from your 'free country' that is a democracy (mob rule, where even the dumbest have a say in the violence).

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

Isn't that Somalia?

Not quite:

In our previous issue, my colleague Andrea Castillo exposed the if-you-hate-the-government-so-much-then-why-don’t-you-move-to-Somalia fallacy. This argumentative move is often used in the effort to reduce the libertarian’s position to absurdity. It is a way of pointing to the poverty and violence in Somalia, and saying “that’s what happens in the absence of a functioning government.” But all our critic has really achieved is a demonstration of his ignorance of Somalia’s recent history. It is true that Somalia is no anarcho-utopia.

But, as Andrea showed, the true cause of Somalia’s troubles is the predatory government that ruled there until collapsing in 1991. But more importantly, during its two decades of statelessness, Somalia has made significant economic progress and improvements in health and well-being. These facts suggest that government is not always necessary for progress. If anything, invoking Somalia seems to support the libertarian’s position.

        For many, this correlation between anarchy and progress in Somalia is a counterintuitive phenomenon. What explains it? Why hasn’t life in Somalia become increasingly “nasty, brutish, and short”? How has productive economic activity increased in the absence of government oversight and regulation? The simple answer is that, although lacking a centralized government, Somalia nonetheless has a decentralized social structure, made up of clans and their subgroups. This decentralized social structure had existed in Somalia for centuries before Western colonization introduced the top-down nation-state style of governance. Fortunately, the decentralized structure has survived, and it now provides the framework within which social, economic, and legal interactions take place.

[...]

http://freepressonline.net/content/decentralization-and-progress-somalia

Seeing this same line over and over again, the Somalia Fallacy just shows how little original thinking there is, and how little thought comes from principle. People just repeat the same stock phrases that come from the State and its apologists and propagandists. Easy to refute, boring and stupid.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[mwvdlee]

Actually it IS relevant to this discussion. The list you made is rather inclusive and pretty much boils down to "no state government at all". I wonder if this is indeed what you meant to say and, if not, what a state government is supposed to do.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Anonymous Coward]

For gods sake you are stupid. People don't inherently have rights to anything. Every right you have is only because the society around you has decided it is so. As long as goverment (however it's made up, whoever it represents) holds the biggest stick they grant the rights and freedoms. People can lose their rights by a vote, people can also lose their rights without vote when someone gains power. If they want to set up their society so that home schooling isn't allowed they have the right to do so. You can declare all the basic human rights all you want, but they still only last as long as society as a whole is willing to live by them, or as long as someone with means to enforce them keeps doing so.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[MoonBuggy]

There's too much money in the US for it to turn into Somalia - the OP is asking for the society straight out of Snow Crash.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[polymeris]

No. Rights are not negotiated, and they do not come from legislatures, the UN or anywhere else. Rights are born with you, they are limited in number and all stem from property rights.

I, too, think that there are inherent rights-- born with you: Things like life, health, education, self determination... But *property* rights?

I thought "As long as you do not infringe on the rights of others you are free...etc*" was a libertarian lemma? How can you reconcile that with basing your rights on restricting other peoples access to resources (aka Property Right)?

* or something of the sort

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

People don't inherently have rights to anything.

Thats true, there is no 'right to healthcare' or 'right to education' both of those things are goods, not rights.

Rights do not come from the decisions of 'society'. There are fundamental principles of morality, and these do not change because people take a vote. You concede this by saying that because government has the 'biggest stick' i.e. a monopoly on violence, they get to say what is what. Just because they can use violence, it doesn't follow that they can dictate reality. They can force people to obey them, but this does not make what they dictate true.

If they want to set up their society so that home schooling isn't allowed they have the right to do so.

Replace the phrase 'home schooling' with slavery. Does it still work for you? No one has the right to take your property against your will, or to force your children to go to school. They may have the power to do that, but that is not the same as having a right.

See the Thomas Woods YouTube I linked to in this socialist infested collectivist fest. After you watch it, you will understand exactly what rights are, where they come from and why what you just wrote is wrong.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

For me it seems you want to live in an anarchy whre the only agreement is "people may own things" ...

That is very insightful and partially correct. The only rules there should be are that you own property, including a property right in yourself, that no one has the right to encroach upon you or your property, and that you should do all you promise to do.

You have a right to dispose of your property as you see fit, enter into contracts as you see fit, and to generally carry out your existence as you see fit.

You claim that there is no right to property, and yet, if you have your money stolen from you, your (quite natural reaction) would be to seek to get it back or get redress. I could go on, but really these things are for you to re-discover on your own.

Perhaps the writings of one of your 'countrymen' would be useful to you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans-Hermann_Hoppe

Happy reading!

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

natural law

Nonsense upon stilts.

Whose stilts, yours or mine or the State's?

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Ice Tiger]

So when has the anarcho-utopia existed?

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Ice Tiger]

What is natural law?

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

Please prove that property rights are innate.

Prove it to yourself:

http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp

So is child slavery OK as long as the parents agree?

Being forced to send your child to a school is Child Slavery, do you approve of it? Do you believe that because a majority thinks it is appropriate, that confers legitimacy upon it?

The ownership of children is revolting and completely wrong (in my opinion) - both by the State or parents.

Then you grasp the fundamental problem. SOMEONE has to be responsible for children. What you have to decide is who you think should be responsible, the State or parents, and then you have to say why.

If you say the State, then you have to explain why such a violent idea is morally correct.

Children have rights. If the parents are unable or unwilling to provide them, the State empowered by the People should provide them. Education is one of the rights, as decided by consensus.

You do not know what rights are or where they come from. If you did, you could not say, for example, that not sending your child to school is removing rights from children, or that children have a 'right to education at school'.

Children do not have rights that are separate and distinct from the rights that all men have. The UN is responsible for creating this fallacious idea of 'Children's Rights' which is nothing more than a means of getting access to children so that they can be controlled in law.

The state is not "empowered by the people" this is brainwashing and rote repetition of the programming people get in Schools. Rights are not conferred or created by consensus, the UN, legislature or anything else.

Please provide the source of the One True Morality. Until then, there is no reason to believe that morality is anything but subjective to each person and therefore such judgments of value are meaningless.

If all morality is subjective, then you cannot claim that it is wrong for people to do harm to one another, since it is only the perspective of the individual that is the basis of morality, This is pure autism, "Only I am real, only what I know is true. Other people are not real, they feel nothing; only my feelings are real" etc.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Kjella]

I believe that I should be able to choose the sort of law I want to be bound by in any contract that I enter into. I can already do this in business contracts, so why should I not be able to do this with myself?

Contracts are voluntary. But if you're walking down the street and I decide to rob you or beat the shit out of you then we can't agree on a choice of law afterwards. Would you really like to enter another jurisdiction who could have its own absurd laws every time you enter a store? What about on the road, what rules apply when two jurisdictions crash at 55 mph? Contracts are simple to avoid, simply don't agree to anything. But it'd be pretty hard to coexist with other people without laws.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

what a state government is supposed to do.

More to the point, and what is crucial, is what a State should not be able to do.

A State should not be able to do anything that you or I am not able to do, like stop people from kissing in public, or growing and smoking Marijuana, or brewing alcohol, or selling those things, or selling yourself, or gambling, or anything whatsoever as long as you do not violate the property rights of other people.

That means no Eminent domain, no internet regulations (censorship, net neutrality), no compulsory school attendance laws, no prohibition, no outlawing of prostitution, no theft (taxation), no enslaving other people (Obamacare, conscription, draft), murder (war) and all the myriad other bad things that the State does.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

The street you are walking down is privately owned, and the private police at either end make escape for you impossible. You are caught, I get my property back, then the street owner sends you to the private court, where you are severely punished.

Would you really like to enter another jurisdiction who could have its own absurd laws every time you enter a store?

Millions of people do it all the time:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1388279/British-tourist-faces-year-Dubai-jail-calling-prophet-Muhammad-terrorist-heated-row.html

On the private roads which I drive, there is no speed limit, just like the Autobahn in Germany. Speed limits dont make road use safer; yet another old wives take propagated by the State.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

So when has the anarcho-utopia existed?

The libertarian society of Ireland, which lasted for a thousand years — and which will be described further below — was able to resist English conquest for hundreds of years because of the absence of a State which could be conquered easily and then used by the conquerors to rule over the native population.

[...]

The most remarkable historical example of a society of libertarian law and courts, however, has been neglected by historians until very recently. And this was also a society where not only the courts and the law were largely libertarian, but where they operated within a purely state-less and libertarian society. This was ancient Ireland — an Ireland which persisted in this libertarian path for roughly a thousand years until its brutal conquest by England in the seventeenth century. And, in contrast to many similarly functioning primitive tribes (such as the Ibos in West Africa, and many European tribes), preconquest Ireland was not in any sense a "primitive" society: it was a highly complex society that was, for centuries, the most advanced, most scholarly, and most civilized in all of Western Europe.

For a thousand years, then, ancient Celtic Ireland had no State or anything like it. As the leading authority on ancient Irish law has written: "There was no legislature, no bailiffs, no police, no public enforcement of justice . . . . There was no trace of State-administered justice."

How then was justice secured? The basic political unit of ancient Ireland was the tuath. All "freemen" who owned land, all professionals, and all craftsmen, were entitled to become members of a tuath. Each tuath's members formed an annual assembly which decided all common policies, declared war or peace on other tuatha, and elected or deposed their "kings." An important point is that, in contrast to primitive tribes, no one was stuck or bound to a given tuath, either because of kinship or of geographical location. Individual members were free to, and often did, secede from a tuath and join a competing tuath. Often, two or more tuatha decided to merge into a single, more efficient unit. As Professor Peden states, "the tuath is thus a body of persons voluntarily united for socially beneficial purposes and the sum total of the landed properties of its members constituted its territorial dimension."10 In short, they did not have the modern State with its claim to sovereignty over a given (usually expanding) territorial area, divorced from the landed property rights of its subjects; on the contrary, tuatha were voluntary associations [p. 232] which only comprised the landed properties of its voluntary members. Historically, about 80 to 100 tuatha coexisted at any time throughout Ireland.

http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp

It lasted 1000 years.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[zpiro]

Based on how many that disagree with you here.
I'd like to point out something that you statements completely ignore, namely democracy!
Taking into account that Iceland is arguably the first democracy in the world, since the anicent greeks didn't allow women to vote.
Why the US based their system on the British imperialist models i beyound me, but corporations were more than happy to fill the power vacuum left by not having a nobility/upper class and royal family(people who's self interest by extension IS the wealth of the state -- opposed to what the state can do for you, or not do for others) to balance out the dualism, shocking that a crippled bad system doesn't work better then a bad system.

Privatizing government is such a ridiculously bad idea, that there really are no words.
There is a reason for dividing power, between government, court of law, and law enforcement -- arguably there should be more such divisions.
What happens when you circumvent this by allowing corporations to do the tasks of government, or even allowing the state to outsource its responsbilities.
You can no longer brag about having a democracy at all, since essentially, you have a power system that is more powerfull then the state.
Namely, financial systems excert control over society.

It's no longer about the wealth of nations, its about the wealth of multinational corporations!
I for one don't agree with this 'democracy'.
If the sate can't provide for a countries infrastrcture, and whats of national interest for the people -- whats the point?
Also, I find it worrysome that multinational corporations can cut of supplies to armies, and in addition have their own 'armies' (security firms).

I don't recognize this so called anti state monopoly that you refer to, as anything other then capitalism; it resembles more feudal kingdoms in the middle ages then a democracy.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and is thus universal.[1] As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (meaning "man-made law", not "good law"; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.[2] In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale).

Although natural law is often conflated with common law, the two are distinct in that natural law is a view that certain rights or values are inherent in or universally cognizable by virtue of human reason or human nature, while common law is the legal tradition whereby certain rights or values are legally cognizable by virtue of judicial recognition or articulation.[3] Natural law theories have, however, exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[4] and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The essence of Declarationism is that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.

[...]

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

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Ice Tiger]

Nature has physics but what you're referring to as natural is just as man made as everything else.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Ice Tiger]

It lasted 1000 years.

And yet it still fell.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

Health and education are not rights, they are goods:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOwImRicZrw

You have a property right in yourself, i.e. you own yourself, your own life and body. Property rights have nothing to do with restricting the rights of others to resources.

There are two senses in which property rights are identical with human rights: one, that property can only accrue to humans, so that their rights to property are rights that belong to human beings; and two, that the person's right to his own body, his personal liberty, is a property right in his own person as well as a "human right." But more importantly human rights, when not put in terms of property rights, turn out to be vague and contradictory.

Take, for example, the "human right" of free speech. Freedom of speech is supposed to mean the right of everyone to say whatever he likes. But the neglected question is: Where? Where does a man have this right? He certainly does not have it on property on which he is trespassing. In short, he has this right only either on his own property or on the property of someone who has agreed, as a gift or in a rental contract, to allow him on the premises. In fact, then, there is no such thing as a separate "right to free speech"; there is only a man's property right: the right to do as he wills with his own or to make voluntary agreements with other property owners.

Every right is derived from property rights. Internet freedoms are all derived from property rights; your right to the boxen you build, your right to copy data on to your own property, your right to connect that box as a peer on the network where you agree to mutually beneficial rules. All of that comes from property rights, and when the State says you cannot post XYZ on your own server, they are not violating your 'right to the internet' or some other fanciful nonsense, they are violating your property rights that you have in your equipment.

Property rights, do not imply restricting the rights of others, they in fact explain and extend the same rights to everyone.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[katyngate]

Doesn't what you said earlier (no monopoly on police) descend into mob rule?

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Ice Tiger]

The street you are walking down is privately owned, and the private police at either end make escape for you impossible. You are caught, I get my property back, then the street owner sends you to the private court, where you are severely punished.

And what if the person robbing you is the one that owns the street?

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

Actually, no:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/bryan6.html

What you have in democracy is mob rule, where by simply voting, people's rights are suppressed only because a majority voted for something, no matter if it is fundamentally immoral or not. That is insane.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Vaphell]

I, too, think that there are inherent rights-- born with you: Things like life, health, education, self determination... But *property* rights?

unless you can heal yourself on your own and teach yourself on your own, health and education are not inherent rights. They are services provided to you by someone else and you are not born with an inherent right to someone else's labor.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

And what if the person robbing you is the one that owns the street?

You mean like 'Jay Walking' in Manhattan?

Or maybe you mean like this man being knocked off of his bicycle in that city:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oUkiyBVytRQ

Thinking is hard!

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[mwvdlee]

Yes, we've heard dozens of times now what you think government should NOT do.
But please tell us what the CAN do according to you.
It really isn't such a difficult question to answer, so I don't understand why I should ask yet again. Please just give a straight and honest answer instead of yet again attacking a strawman. I would really like to try and understand your point of view, but you're making it impossible for me to do so by only explaining half of what is undoubtedly a well-rounded view of how government should work.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Jookey]

Kjella may not be getting through to the randroids but he is inoculating our young newbie slashdot readers from that brain disease. Keep up the good work.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Anonymous Coward]

Your ideas are based off of the incorrect idea that we have any rights beyond the right to exercise force. You are wrong... the only innate right we have is force. So do we collectively exercise force or individually exercise force... Seems that the societies that have the most success have decided to collectivize their force and administer that force in a bureaucracy as opposed to at the whims of individuals (Ireland seemed to have had the shit kicked outta it). Everything is an extension of force and collective force is stronger than individual force. For example... in the George Ought To Help video... it mentions something harmless such as helping a friend... but what if George were raping his children or the children of others...
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/06/13/man-pleads-guilty-to-fathering-daughters-4-kids
Would we think it fine that government go in and save his children... most of us, i hope, would, but according to the video... maybe we shouldn't get him to do what he Ought... which is treat his children and the children of others with dignity.
Now... if we don't go with collective force and stick with individual force... and George has set up his home to be very secure (say a military bunker) and has stolen your daughter and decided to rape her continually... my guess... is that you will decide to go to the collective force to get her back... i would hope.

You ideas are funny and can only exist when everyone is good. It seems to me that communism and your ideas are so idealist that they can't ever work in a real world... (ie Startrek (communism) or Lord of the Flies(anarchy) )

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Foobar of Borg]

Your construction is interesting "one's children"; that is a possessive construction, and its one that everyone uses because quite naturally, properly functioning human beings understand that children really do belong to their parents

Good grief, you're so fucking stupid! By that argument, "my boss" and "my girlfriend" are also my own personal property? Are you really that big of an idiot??? Plus, if you really think your children are your property, you need to have them taken away from you. Now. Because, if you really think they are your property, then you think you can sell them, molest them, kill them, or do any other sort of horrible thing to them.

Please, for the sake of your children, kill yourself. Immediately.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Foobar of Borg]

So funny. A Westerner who think the rules of his tribe are laws of nature!

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[icebraining]

Being forced to send your child to a school is Child Slavery, do you approve of it? Do you believe that because a majority thinks it is appropriate, that confers legitimacy upon it?

You're deflecting the question.

Then you grasp the fundamental problem. SOMEONE has to be responsible for children. What you have to decide is who you think should be responsible, the State or parents, and then you have to say why.

The parents, but only if they respect the children's rights as determined by society.

You do not know what rights are or where they come from.

Possibly.

If you did, you could not say, for example, that not sending your child to school is removing rights from children, or that children have a 'right to education at school'.

I never said that. I said they have a right to an education, and I specifically pointed out that I have no problems with such education being provided at home.

Children do not have rights that are separate and distinct from the rights that all men have

You're contradicting yourself. As you said, parents have property rights over children, which obviously takes away some of the rights that adults enjoy. Therefore, children do not have the same rights that all men have.

By the way, should a three year old have the right to possess a firearm?

If all morality is subjective, then you cannot claim that it is wrong for people to do harm to one another, since it is only the perspective of the individual that is the basis of morality,

I agree. And by the way, you're deflecting again.

This is pure autism, "Only I am real, only what I know is true. Other people are not real, they feel nothing; only my feelings are real" etc.

That does not follow from the previous statement in any way; in fact, on the contrary: you claim to know what is Right and Wrong, regardless of what other people think.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[lwsimon]

I find your ideas compelling, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

I'm sorry that I am not being completely clear, please forgive me.

If we are to accept the notion of a State, then the only way it can be legitimate is if it is completely voluntary and non violent. That means that such a state can do anything, as long as they do not steal or coerce anyone.

That means they cannot raise an army through conscription (slavery). They cannot tax (theft). They cannot go to war (murder).

They can run a 'National Health Service' but they cannot steal money to run it. They can do anything as long as participation in it and contributions to it are voluntary, and the rights of other people are not violated. That means no Eminent domain for the 'public good', for example. It means no 'zoning' laws or 'planning permission'.

This is why Unions are such a good thing, and why laws controlling them are so evil. All men have the absolute right to associate with whomever they want. They can join together and refuse to work, or work together on mutually agreeable terms. These associations have nothing whatsoever to do with the State, and the State has no right to stop unions from striking. If the State can stop people from striking, they make workers into slaves.

An acceptable form of a state would take the shape of voluntary unions, where people can join and quit at will. Under the western democracies, you are born into slavery, as property of the State. The liberties you have are the gift of the state, and you are not even allowed to teach yourself unless they give you permission. You do not own your own land or house, and are forced to pay rent on it to the State ('Property Tax', 'Council Tax', 'Rates' etc)

A properly running State of Free Men could not automagically claim that you owe allegiance to them, or that 50% of your income belongs to the collective, or that your children must attend their schools and fight in their military or that you should pay 40% tax the house you inherited, or that you should pay an ongoing tax just because you own it.

In short, the State can do anything that you or I can do, but nothing that an individual cannot do.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[lwsimon]

Read his comment fully before you retort - you look like an idiot when you get upset at the first sentence, get pissed, and reply without ever reading the second.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[dunkelfalke]

This is bullshit.
There is no such thing as fundamental principles of morality. Neither is there such a thing as a fundamental right, as GP rightfully said.

If you are born into a society, that has codified some rights to laws, then you are lucky. If these laws are based on a benign moral code, you are even more lucky, because the society can enforce these laws.

Without these laws being enforced by the society your "rights" are worth only so much as you can enforce them yourself unto others. Try living some time in a society where the law does not work, that will help you to lose some of your delusions. Right now you are just spoiled because because of living a theme park version of life for too long.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Anonymous Coward]

I am a libertarian and you may go ahead and call him a fruitcake. Not because it is your right to have that opinion (which it is, because I dearly hold that right, because head explode), but because *I* think he is a fruitcake too.

I agree in part that some rights can only be taken away via due process, and a nation's constitution should recognize those rights and hold them immune from public referendum. But for a state to exist, for it to protect those rights, it must tax. No taxes, no state, and then someone else steps in.

Obviously there is ample disagreement about how much to tax and what to spend it on.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

You cannot be a libertarian and also think that its legitimate that rights can be taken away by the State. They cant. For the record, who is to decide what rights the state will hold immune from public referendum and what rights should not, and how are they going to decide? By referendum no doubt. Your thinking is faulty on this, clearly.

Due process is a total sham; ask Julian Assange or Nelson Mandela or anyone else to whom 'due process' has been done. Its just another State brainwashing term, pure and simple.

But for a state to exist, for it to protect those rights, it must tax.

This is just a lie. You do not have to tax to protect rights; look at all the private security firms that exist without having to steal money from their clients.

This 'fruitcake' has a better and fuller understanding of Libertarianism than you do, and I dont have to ad hom to drive my points home.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[oldmac31310]

You have problems Foobar. Don't take them out on people who try to express a reasonable opinion.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Godeke]

Assuming as given the premise that the state can only exist if it is non-violent, who prevents the situation from degrading into warlords filling the violence vacuum. If you have a private police on your small chunk of land you live on, what is to stop another from simply taking your land by force? In a traditional state, we rely on the courts, police and laws (rules) thereof to establish the accepted norms and to enforce them.

Are you simply saying that your "private police" will be bigger than the aggressors?

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Foobar of Borg]

Read his comment fully before you retort - you look like an idiot when you get upset at the first sentence, get pissed, and reply without ever reading the second.

Read some of his other comments in this article. What I replied was consistent with his overall attitude, even if he temporarily had enough sense to add a few qualifiers to this one.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

Abolition of the public sector means, of course, that all pieces of land, all land areas, including streets and roads, would be owned privately, by individuals, corporations, cooperatives, or any other voluntary groupings of individuals and capital.

The fact that all streets and land areas would be private would by itself solve many of the seemingly insoluble problems of private operation. What we need to do is to reorient our thinking to consider a world in which all land areas are privately owned.

Let us take, for example, police protection. How would police protection be furnished in a totally private economy? Part of the answer becomes evident if we consider a world of totally private land and street ownership.

Consider the Times Square area of New York City, a notoriously crime-ridden area where there is little police protection furnished by the city authorities. Every New Yorker knows, in fact, that he lives and walks the streets, and not only Times Square, virtually in a state of “anarchy,” dependent solely on the normal peacefulness and good will of his fellow citizens. Police protection in New York is minimal, a fact dramatically revealed during week-long police strikes when, lo and behold!, crime in no way increased from its normal state when the police are supposedly alert and on the job. At any rate, suppose that the Times Square area, including the streets, was privately owned, say by the “Times Square Merchants Association.” The merchants would know full well, of course, that if crime was rampant in their area, if muggings and holdups abounded, then their customers would fade away and would patronize competing areas and neighborhoods. Hence, it would be to the economic interest of the merchants’ association to supply efficient and plentiful police protection, so that customers would be attracted to, rather than repelled from, their neighborhood. Private business, after all, is always trying to attract and keep its customers. But what good would be served by attractive store displays and packaging, pleasant lighting and courteous service, if the customers may be robbed or assaulted if they walk through the area?

The merchants’ association, furthermore, would be induced, by their drive for profits and for avoiding losses, to supply not only sufficient police protection but also courteous and pleasant protection. Governmental police have not only no incentive to be efficient or worry about their “customers’” needs; they also live with the ever-present temptation to wield their power of force in a brutal and coercive manner. “Police brutality” is a well-known feature of the police system, and it is held in check only by remote complaints of the harassed citizenry. But if the private merchants’ police should yield to the temptation of brutalizing the merchants’ customers, those customers will quickly disappear and go elsewhere. Hence, the merchants’ association will see to it that its police are courteous as well as plentiful.

Such efficient and high-quality police protection would prevail throughout the land, throughout all the private streets and land areas. Factories would guard their street areas, merchants their streets, and road companies would provide safe and efficient police protection for their toll roads and other privately owned roads. The same would be true for residential neighborhoods.

We can envision two possible types of private street ownership in such neighborhoods. In one type, all the landowners in a certain block might become the joint owners of that block, let us say as the “85th St. Block Company.” This company would then provide police protection, the costs being paid either by the home-owners directly or out of tenants’ rent if the street includes rental apartments. Again, homeowners will of course have a direct interest in seeing that their block is safe, while landlords will try to attract tenants by supplying safe streets in addition to the more

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[horigath]

If when you go to a place where the people and property owners have developed a social contract that agrees to settle disputes in a prescribed way, you can expect to be treated according to that contract, why do you have such a problem with the way Assange has been treated as to mention it repeatedly in this thread?

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[glodime]

All "freemen" who owned land, all professionals, and all craftsmen, were entitled to become members of a tuath.

That sounds like it worked out great for those that were not landowners, professionals, or craftsmen.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, I wish there was a "-1, fuck you" moderation.

But you son of a bitch. How dare you claim to represent the disadvantaged. I *was* disadvantaged, but people like you would preach to me how it was *my* fault. Yes, it was only merciless bullying in school, yes I was "only" suicidal for most of my life, but that still warranted at least some help, even by your own fucking values.

What happened instead? Victim blaming, of course. Not one fucking iota of investment in me as a person.

Now I have become one of those "professionals" you think have a rosy life, and you are going to demand of me that I "help" others? After "others" turned their back on me and caused me so much pain, not an hour goes by that I don't think about it?

I have news for you. Here is exactly the amount of sacrifice I am going to give you for the welfare of others: 0. I will fight your platform at every turn, because I know deep down that what happened to me was wrong, and I know it is unfair to ask me to step up when no one did for me, and even now people still want to blame me, and that is just a gross violation of the social compact.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Godeke]

That is quite the Utopian description and quite the bit of typing, but it doesn't address the short, simple question I actually asked.

Someone is in conflict with you over your private ownership of the land. The group who disputes your ownership is not participating in a Utopia but are nothing more than organized criminals (a warlord and his muscle) looking for low hanging fruit to pluck. They are willing to use violence. In keeping with the lack of a state that can threaten violence, who is going to prevent them from taking over your land?

This isn't a theoretical question: during the heyday of the mob there were cities that were effectively ruled by warlords (mobster families). They were rooted out only with the application of force and they used force to fight against being rooted out. Mexico is under siege from internal warlords and stateless regions of our planet are rife with warlords.

Not everyone is going to internalize libertarian principles and without a way to fight those groups, I see those willing to use violence prevailing against those who spout platitudes. Your vision seems to frame criminals as individual actors that traditional (if private) policing can manage. I argue that such a Utopian society will fall prey to those organized groups without such deep thinking and fewer morals.

Returning to the direct question: who prevents your land from being taken over in this scenario?

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Ice Tiger]

But you're no better off are you if the person robbing you is the one that owns the street.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

who is going to prevent them from taking over your land?

The private security firm that you pay a subscription to.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[cyber-vandal]

Or women. I wonder how women got on in this paradise. I bet as badly as everywhere else.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Anonymous Coward]

Try living some time in a society where the law does not work, that will help you to lose some of your delusions.

While I disagree with much of his rant (barring that I think that homeschooling should be legal everywhere), saying "some people have it worse" does not make the current situation good.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[cheekyjohnson]

Rights are born with you

Can you prove this? The fact that I'm able to do something does not make it a "right."

decent human being

Subjective.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[cheekyjohnson]

you have to accept that someone must have authority over them in the form of being a ward or guardian.

While I think that there should be a guardian or something similar, I don't see how one "must" accept this opinion. It is just an opinion, after all.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[cyber-vandal]

So the question still stands: if this wonderful decentralized structure provides the kind of governance you are happy with, why aren't you already there? Working for the UK immigration service has given me a slightly different insight into the Somali clan structure. You might want to type "Somalia human rights" into Google to examine the wealth of material on how terrible things actually are for Somalis, especially those from minor clans who have no major clan to protect them. I also have to wonder how much of the improvements in health and well-being have been financed by the armed robbery of international shipping.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[cheekyjohnson]

Is it really okay to abandon millions of children to the ignorance dictated by their parents?

Can you prove that this actually happens? If it happens to some of them, I think that's a shame, but not enough to ban homeschooling entirely (I'm entirely against indoctrinating children with pointless religious beliefs and such).

but they get to hear what the rest of society says, too.

Right. Because after spending almost an entire day at a school, they have time to be taught at home, right? If you try to do both, the child will have almost zero free time (they have to sleep too, after all).

I think the current school system is terribly inefficient because it teaches children things that they will probably not even use. I think that they should teach them the basics at first, and then give them a choice later on (perhaps in high school). Forcing knowledge that is useless to them upon them is inefficient because not only does it waste their time, it could make them do poorly in subjects that are important to them (because they have less time to work on those specific subjects) and they will forget information that they do not use/care about anyway (from my experience, anyway). By the time they have to apply their knowledge, they'll probably have to relearn it anyway.

I did go to a public school (it wasn't a bad one, mind you). Even now I feel it was mostly a waste of my time (not that homeschooling would have been better in my situation, but public schools could be vastly improved). Assuming that most people wish to brainwash their children by homeschooling them is a bit rash, I think. Unless you have evidence to back that conclusion up, of course.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[cyber-vandal]

Not to mention that their patron saint started life in Ireland as a slave kidnapped from Wales. Looks like the argument is crumbling a bit. Some more Irish history from here:

Three social classes existed during this age – kings, lords and commoners. Lords were wealthy and had clients (bondsmen). Commoners were freemen with full legal rights and their own land. Some were well off (the bóaire). There were also landless men and hereditary serfs. Status was important in the legal system – rights and legal compensations depended on it. Under clientship, lords granted the client a fief (goods) and protection; the client made payments to the lord. There was free and base clientship – free clients were often nobles, and took a share in their lord’s plunder. Base clientship was like a loan, from which the lord came out best. Slavery was extensive.

Not quite the libertarian paradise was it? Or how about this:

The population was between half and one million. Much of the land was wilderness and uninhabited. The more powerful – any farmers with land – owned ringforts to protect their farms. Land was farmed in strips; milk and dairy was important. The upper classes ate a lot of meat, which formed a normal part of clients’ payments. Grain was also vital – oat for porridge, barley for ale and bread. Vegetables were grown on a small scale and wild fruit and nuts were important in people’s diet. Famine was common, coupled with disease, social disorder and internal migration. Epidemics occurred repeatedly.

Oh yeah 8th century Ireland sounded like a veritable land of milk and honey, just like everywhere else in the Dark Ages.

Mael Sechnaill II acted as ‘high king’ of Ireland. Provincial kings were growing more powerful; warfare increased. More administrators were needed to mind kingdoms in the king’s absence. Kings were granting away large territories and carving them up between their supporters. They also made laws and imposed taxes. They granted land in return for homage and military service.

Doesn't seem to be a single mention of any of the tuaths or how equitable the whole thing was. Seems to have been just like the rest of Europe.

Here's something relating to Brehon law which paints a different picture:

The law that the Celts of Ireland used has been called Brehon law. Forms of Brehon Law were used in Ireland for hundreds of years. A full treatment of Brehon Law is beyond the scope of this article, but the idea was that a person's identity was defined by the kingdom in which they lived. A peasant had no legal status outside the tuath, with the exception of men of art and learning. Those who were tied to their tuath were unfree and worked for the king. All land was owned by families, not by individuals. Wealth was measured in cattle, and each individual had a status measured in terms of wealth. Almost any crime committed against an individual could be recompensed by paying a fine equal to the status of the individual. For example, a 50 cows for an important person, 3 cows for a peasant. There was no death penalty; but, an individual could be ostracised from the tuath in certain circumstances.

Worked for the king? Doesn't sound very libertarian to me.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[cyber-vandal]

What if you can't afford to pay a subscription to a good private security firm?

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[glodime]

I'm pointing out a potential flaw in the political structure of Ireland as it was explained to have existed several hundred years ago. You are accusing me of victim blaming and maliciously ignoring the bullying you suffered that I was not aware of. I just don't see how they are related.

I hope that you will realize that no one is an island unto themselves. I nope you are able to build a support group of caring friends that can you share with and thrive in the wealth of potential that is life.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Beautyon]

That will not happen for the vast majority. Buying security will be cheap. Its the same as people buying insurance today, the more people who do it, the cheaper it becomes.

For those who cannot afford private security, they can defend themselves in voluntary defence groups, in the same way that small villages have voluntary firemen.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[cyber-vandal]

You're not selling this very well. If I'm too poor to afford a rentacop I need to risk injury or death to protect my family and my home. Why should I give up the evils of socialist police forces that do a pretty good job of preventing warlords or mobsters from taking my home from me for such an uncertain future. I also don't see why private police forces would be any more reliable than the private health insurance companies here in the UK when it comes to making a claim. "Well Mr Vandal, you didn't declare that you were burgled 5 years ago. Even though nothing was taken and you didn't need to use the services of the McPolice this means you're not covered by our Justice For All plan. Our bill for the callout will follow in the next 3 working days". Why do libertarians think that corporations aren't going to screw their customers when they don't have to follow any consumer protection laws is beyond me.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Anonymous Coward]

Others need a slap.

Sounds like my wife. Sometimes I have to use violence against her so she'll see that I am correct. Otherwise, she continues being stubborn by not believing exactly what I believe (which warrants violence, of course).

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[Godeke]

If this "will not happen for the vast majority" then why isn't this happening in parts of the world without a strong state presence? By "this" I mean specifically the use of this proposed "cheap security".

Genocide is far beyond my "taking of land" proposal, but there it is in the news. One would think that in the lawless areas that the raping, pillaging and burning of the communities would make such a "cheap security" a self fulfilling prophecy if it wasn't some Utopian fiction.

So, as Cyber Vandal says, you aren't selling this particularly well. The private security firm that you are paying can very easily be outclassed by a warlord as history and current events related in the stateless (or weak state) areas will attest. Really, there seems to be two outcomes historically: a strong state asserts its presence or small factions vie for domination via violence.

I wish your Utopia the best, but I suspect (even discounting statist action) Galt's Gulch will be razed and burning.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[shutdown -p now]

You do not have to tax to protect rights; look at all the private security firms that exist without having to steal money from their clients.

What, same ones that supply child sexual slaves for parties of their warlord clients in Afghanistan?

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[shutdown -p now]

The only rules there should be are that you own property, including a property right in yourself, that no one has the right to encroach upon you or your property, and that you should do all you promise to do.

And why should that be the rule, aside from "because I say so"? There's really no other reason.

Once that is understood, then all other rules that exist in real world societies in addition to (and sometimes in direct contravention to) property right also exist for the same reason - "because we say so".

Now, I certainly wouldn't want to live in a society such as you describe. Indeed, most people would not, which is precisely why there are no libertarian parties in power anywhere today.

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[shutdown -p now]

Who decides which law is natural and which isn't? You said that one uses the power of reason to determine that; applying my power of reason leads me to the conclusion that no law - including property laws - is natural. A lot of people agree with me, and disagree with you. Now what? Who's the final arbiter?

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[shutdown -p now]

I believe that I should be able to choose the sort of law I want to be bound by in any contract that I enter into.

What happens when you enter a contract and then break it? How is the contract enforced?

What if you didn't break the contract, but the other side claims that you did, and uses the same enforcement mechanism that applied to the case above?

What if the contract requires you to relinquish all rights that you held, in perpetuity?

What if the contract was entered by you under duress (i.e. a gun to your head)? Are you still bound by it or not? How would that be taken into account by the enforcement process above?

Ultimately, what, in such a society, prevents the "private security" companies (or, really, any group with guns and the ability to stick together for a common goal) from becoming simple racketeers, and eventually forming a dictatorial government?

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[shutdown -p now]

So they didn't spank kids in that libertarian Irish utopia?

Re:They cannot possibly get it right

[shutdown -p now]

So then, back to the original question - since Somalia really is a shining example of libertarian supremacy, why don't you just move there and enjoy it?

Facebook is now a world government

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it would take another decade. But with things shaping up, Facefuck is now a de facto world government, at least on the same level as those revolutionary councils set up in strife-torn countries like Libya or Tibet.

Re:Facebook is now a world government

[Anonymous Coward]

No more than email, or postal mail, or television is. They are all just communications media that reach a significant percentage of their population.

Love the title

[EdIII]

Iceland taps Facebook

Sorry, but my first thought was a puerile one. Quite fitting, since I think Facebook is fucking over a lot of people everyday, it was just their turn to get "tapped".

Re:FIRST!

[Kjella]

They said facebook, not /b/

New provision in the Icelandic constitution...

[Erbo]

courtesy of one of its more successful businesses:

"No one shall engage in unprovoked ganks in Empire highsec, on pain of being CONCORDOKKEN'd."

/still checking through early drafts, looking for the page where they inserted the phrase "HARDEN THE F**K UP"

Re:New provision in the Icelandic constitution...

[Mindcontrolled]

Mate, they are basically vikings. Don't think they need to enshrine "Harden the fuck up" in their constitution.

Let me guess...

[spectrokid]

you are living in the country on earth that spends the most $$$/inhabitant on healthcare, yet bungles somewhere around Cuba in elementary healthcare statistics like child mortality and cancer survival rates. You firmly believe in printing your own money backed by a gold standard, but are posting from a shiny laptop you could never have bought if your government wasn't borrowing shitloads of money from the chinese. You have absolutely no clue about the damages which alcohol abuse historically have done in ALL countries close to the polar circle. Therefore you couldn't imagine that in a very thin spread population, in a country with tons of gravel roads, "I'm homeschooling my kids", could easily mean "I 'm too drunk to drive them to school.". The social and pedagogical effects of a child growing up on a remote vulcano and never meeting other kids is totally lost on you. Oh fuck it, this is boring...

Re:Let me guess...

[azalin]

You have obviously never lived in Scandinavia. Most people in Europe envy their way of live. Culture, social security, healthcare - but that is all nanny style communism is suppose. As for the alcohol: Try living in a place where the sun shows up for 2 hours a day during winter, where your traveling options a severely limited by ice and snow for several months and where winter depressions are common. (No not the "I'm not feeling happy today, so I must be depressed" kind, but the "I am going to drink my self senseless from October to March or simply kill myself" kind.) The laws weren't implemented because people were drinking vodka like soda and had a mortality rate not even heard of in any other country in the world.

Re:Let me guess...

[azalin]

damn. feeding the trolls again.

Re:Let me guess...

[Beautyon]

All of that is irrelevant. The question is wether or not Scandinavia is a place where the people live in a condition where they can exercise their rights. Clearly this is not the case. They cannot Home Educate. They cannot buy and sell freely. This is immoral and unacceptable to decent people, and no matter what the glossy sheen that country has, not matter how nice the people are as individuals, the State there is evil and there is no doubt about it. This is about principles, not expedience, excuses and justifications for violent and sickening evil:

https://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/swedengovernmentseizechildfromhomeschoolfamily

For example.

Re:Let me guess...

[G-forze]

Like the other poster said; It's not forbidden to educate your child at home, but it is forbidden to deprive them of the education provided by the state. And I for one am all on the side of the state in this. Too many children would have to suffer because they happened to be born to nutty parents otherwise.

Re:Let me guess...

[Beautyon]

Like the other poster said; It's not forbidden to educate your child at home, but it is forbidden to deprive them of the education provided by the state.

That is a flat out lie. Home Education is ILLEGAL in Sweden and Iceland and Germany (for example). You may not teach 'your' children at home, even if you decide to follow the State curriculum.

In the case of Germany, the law forbidding Home Schooling is one of the few laws left on the statute books from that country's dark era that Godwin's law prevents me from typing out. :)

Re:Let me guess...

[G-forze]

No, you just misread what I say. You can teach your children anything you want at home, for example after they come home from school. That is in no way forbidden. What is forbidden is you keeping them from going to school in the first place.

Re:Let me guess...

[angel'o'sphere]

All of that is irrelevant. The question is wether or not Scandinavia is a place where the people live in a condition where they can exercise their rights. Clearly this is not the case.

You Sir, have no clue. Especially not about nordic/germanic ideas how law should work or what property is.

Law and rights are completely arbitrary.

USA: I own land, you step on it, I shot you: legal! (And from an european or asian point of view: absurd!)

Norway e.g.: you own land, we have a stormy season with harsh weather, I make a camp on your land at the lake or the stream: legal!

In Norway I can make a camp everywhere I want for up to 4 weeks (or was it 6 weeks?) if the wether is fine. If the weather is harsh I can camp *indefinitely* on your land.

Completely different ideas what is legal and what is not.

In USA you have "the freedom" to shot one in Norway you have the freedom "to survive on foreign property" under harsh conditions. I consider the "freedom to survive" a much higher freedom than your ranting freedoms.

Thre are endless more examples ...

Re:Let me guess...

[angel'o'sphere]

That is a flat out lie. Home Education is ILLEGAL in Sweden and Iceland and Germany (for example). You may not teach 'your' children at home, even if you decide to follow the State curriculum.

That is bullshit, and that is the reason why I set "illegal" in quotes when I awnsered the first time to you.

I happen to live in germany. Teaching your kids yourself is ofc not illegal. However the children and parents have "school duty". That means the childrans have to go to school.

However: that in no way means you can not give them extra education at home.

In the case of Germany, the law forbidding Home Schooling is one of the few laws left on the statute books from that country's dark era that Godwin's law prevents me from typing out. :)

No it is not ;D The law about compulsory schooling
or school attendance is much older. And as I said above, it does not include anything preventing you to home school as long as your kids go to school ;D
I really doubt there is any country in the world that is forbidding "extra education" at home.

Re:Let me guess...

[antifoidulus]

However: that in no way means you can not give them extra education at home.

Actually in Germany you are EXPECTED to teach them to a certain degree at home. I was amazed at how early kids in Germany got out of school until a German friend told me that their parents(read mothers) are expected to educate them in the afternoons. Of course this doesn't really bode well for kids with busy and/or neglectful then their children suffer and are much less likely to get into Gynasium and beyond......

Re:Let me guess...

[angel'o'sphere]

that their parents(read mothers) are expected to educate them in the afternoons.

Thats exagerated. However parents are supposed to help with homeworks or at least supervise the kids doing their homeworks. I don't know how that is done in other countries whre the pupils are in school till late afternoon, do they have homeworks in Spain, France ot Italy?

Re:Let me guess...

[Beautyon]

It seems that you dont understand what Home Education Home or Schooling actually means:

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

Its illegal in Germany. Thats immoral. Deal with it.

Re:Let me guess...

[Beautyon]

Law and rights are completely arbitrary.

Thats what they taught you in school, so that you would not be able to think like a free man.

USA: I own land, you step on it, I shot you: legal! (And from an european or asian point of view: absurd!)

In Texas, you have better property rights than you do in other states; its called the Castle Doctrine:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=texas+man+shot+trespassing+drunk+taxi+jumped+out#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=castle%20doctrine%20texas&aq=1l&aqi=g-l5&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=ea006a1cc738a9bb&biw=1268&bih=740&pf=p&pdl=300

You have no right to encroach on other people's property without permission. Period. the only rights you have are to your own property, which includes your own body.

Norway e.g.: you own land, we have a stormy season with harsh weather, I make a camp on your land at the lake or the stream: legal!

Legal yes, but moral no. Would I give shelter to people who are suffering? Yes. Do others have a right to shelter on other people's land? No.

You do not understand what the difference between rights and laws is. You do not know what rights are or where they come from.

You have to understand this before you can discuss it properly.

Re:Let me guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry that rating I assume is the U.N rating on healthcare which rates the U.S. lower than Cuba due to way our income tax system works. Don't listen to Micheal Moore plz.

Re:Let me guess...

[Jedi Alec]

Law and rights are completely arbitrary.

Thats what they taught you in school, so that you would not be able to think like a free man.

No, they did not. That is what rational thought tells me. Our rights and our laws are what we collectively decide as human beings. Anything beyond that is total claptrap. There is no God giving us rights. There are no rights inherent to us because we happened to develop too many neurons to just stay in the fucking tree. We are *not* in any way, shape or form special.

We have rights because as a collective we decide we have them and then we hire a bunch of folks #1 and give them weapons to protect those rights, all the while hiring another bunch of folks #2 to try and take them away while we aren't looking, right up to the the point where we violently toss out group #2 while praying #1 is on our side and not theirs.

So, where do *your* rights come from? Don't bother replying if it involves deities.

Re:Let me guess...

[Beautyon]

So, where do *your* rights come from? Don't bother replying if it involves deities.

Try this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6n1FL42to8

or if you have the time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-Lb8YitPs8

Re:Let me guess...

[AmiMoJo]

Germany does not allow it because school is one of the ways they prevent extremism from re-emerging. If a child is home schooled exclusively the parent can tell them anything they like, e.g. Jews are evil and pollute the German Master Race. At school they spend quite a lot of time instilling modern German values and society is considered to have the right to force that on children, even against the wishes of their parents.

Germany has a pretty much zero tolerance approach to this sort of thing. They are determined to never, ever let something like that happen again.

Re:Let me guess...

[Beautyon]

Germany does not allow it because school is one of the ways they prevent extremism from re-emerging.

Even the UN has condemned Germany for its stance on Home Schooling:

...the long-running problem in Germany drew the criticism of a United Nations special rapporteur's documents.

"Even though the special rapporteur is a strong advocate of public, free and compulsory education, it should be noted that education may not be reduced to mere school attendance and that educational processes should be strengthened to ensure that they always and primarily serve the best interest of the child," the report said.

"Distance-learning methods and homeschooling represent valid options which could be developed in certain circumstances, bearing in mind that parents have the right to choose the appropriate type of education for their children, as stipulated in article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights," the U.N. report said.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=146273

Just because the Germans had a bad episode and the German government is paranoid about a recurrence, this does not mean that the rights of Germans today should be suppressed.

Ironically, they are using a law enacted by the very regime they are trying to stop re-emerging to stop the re-emergence of that regime.

Its recursive!

At school they spend quite a lot of time instilling modern German values

This is a euphemism for brainwashing, pure and simple. Its immoral, indefensible and really bad.

Re:Let me guess...

[elsurexiste]

Alcohol abuse in other people is not my business; and this is a deep flaw in your philosophy; you believe that because SOME parents are bad, ALL parents must be put under the wing of the State 'for the sake of the children'. This is the sort of reasoning that creates laws to control the internet, and it gives birth to totalitarian countries like Sweden (Home School banned, because their parliament says their society is perfect, and so there is no need for Home Schooling. Im not making that up. State monopoly on the sale of alcohol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverages_in_Sweden etc etc), Finland (where you are fined for speeding proportionally to your income) and Iceland (train wreck vassal state, hollowed out by the banksters, where you dont have even the most basic of your rights).

People's ability to perform excellent teaching is not my business; and this is a deep flaw in your philosophy; you believe that because SOME parents have the full pedagogical knowledge gathered by humanity, ALL parents must be left to their own whims 'for the sake of freedom'. This is the sort of reasoning that creates anarchic chaos, and it gives birth to people like you.

Man, you're not full of sh*t, you are hollow. You even failed at trolling because I'm not angry, just mildly amused by your arguments. Practice more for next time, n00b.

Re:Let me guess...

[Reservoir Penguin]

Sound like a place I would like. I prefer night shifts and Sun depresses me :)

Re:Let me guess...

[AmiMoJo]

I think you misunderstand what Germany is trying to do. It is a consideration of the child's human rights that leads to the conclusion that all children must attend school, because even the child's parents do not have the right to take the child's right to a state education and to learning what it is to be a German citizen away.

This concept is very strong in German law. For example no-one can take away another's right to life. This lead to the government ending up in court when they tried to give the air force permission to shoot down passenger aircraft that had been hijacked and were likely to be used as weapons (it was a reaction to 9/11 and terror attacks in Europe). The court ruled that they could not violate the passenger's right to life, even if they knew for certain that it would result in thousands more people being killed.

A senior policeman even did time for threatening to kill a suspect who had admitted to kidnapping two girls and was refusing to reveal their location once in custody. Eventually he cracked but it turned out that the girls had starved to death a long time before he was picked up, but even just the threat was enough to convict the investigator who had purely good intentions.

So you can see that German law is extremely strict about these things because it wants to make sure that Germany never starts on the slippery slope to fascism, and to emphasise that human rights are inalienable and universal even in the face of religion or parent's desires for their kids.

This is a euphemism for brainwashing, pure and simple. Its immoral, indefensible and really bad.

How would you teach citizenship issues and things like morality then? Leave it up to the parents? I see nothing wrong with teaching values agreed by society, just like America teaches the constitution and France teaches the values of equality, liberty and fraternity.

Re:Let me guess...

[horigath]

Oh: your rights come from appeals to philosophy written by others and grounded in the authority of "natural law" whereby white men are always right, especially if they're balding. Perhaps people with whom you have developed a social consensus. It's only fair, since as you pointed out above, you have no innate ability to self-educate.

Re:Let me guess...

[Beautyon]

First of all, its important to understand what rights are before entering into a discussion about them. Education is not a right, its a good. Children do not have rights as a class of human being, they have the same rights that all men do.

Germany is trying to and is succeeding in creating a generation of people who cannot think in any other way than what the government schools dictate. That is why almost all of them fail to defend Home Education, and why families flee Germany to seek and receive political asylum in the USA.

The examples you give involving violence and police trying to extract information unter torture are straw man arguments. We are discussing wether or not the parent is the parent of children, or the State. In Germany, Sweden, Iceland and other non free countries, the State is the ultimate parent of children, and this has been achieved through the fallacious pretext of 'the Rights of the Child'. In fact, this is nothing more than the entrenching of the jobs and status of a few State employees and evil social engineers who want to mould those societies as they see fit.

How would you teach citizenship issues and things like morality then?

Morality and all matters of the spirit and these private matters of conscience are not the business of the State. How they are taught or not taught in someone's home is not your or my business This is exactly how totalitarian systems are able to come into being; when a small number of aparatchiks decide what morality is, based on their own prejudices and perversions, this then being pumped by force into the minds of every school attending pupil. The fact that you might agree with what is being taught right now, does not make it moral.

I see nothing wrong with teaching values agreed by society, just like America teaches the constitution and France teaches the values of equality, liberty and fraternity.

There is no such thing as 'values agreed by society'. What goes into a State curriculum is decided by a small number of 'experts' who are prejudiced and biased. It is this small group, in every jurisdiction, that dictates what is taught to schoolchildren. It is not an act of collective approval or subject to a vote (not that that would legitimise it); you send 'your' children to school under threat that if you do not, you might have them taken away from you, and when they get to the school, you have absolutely no say over what is taught to them, how it is taught, etc. People who understand what freedom is and what rights are hold this to be pure evil.

America teaches the Constitution in the way that they do because that is how they keep control over their population. Its why so few people are able to even imagine the perfectly reasonable and rational possibility of a Stateless society, or even a reduced Federal Government which is explicitly called for in the Constitution (tenth amendment). In France, they teach what they teach to keep the French 'French'. They even ban foreign language music from the radio by law.

Compulsory school laws are immoral, and the paper thin justifications that the Germans give for their draconian laws cannot even convince the UN that they are reasonable.

Finally, the whole thing is violent, and can only work because the German State threaten Germans with the kidnapping of their children. If the German, Swedish an Spanish systems were so great, perfect, tolerant and wonderful, there would be no need for compulsion; the fact is the operators of the State cannot stand the fact that even 100 families in Germany Home Educate, such is their loathing for free thought. So much for the inclusive, diverse German Utopia.

To those who say, "you can always leave" look at the case of Johannson boy who was kidnapped right off of an airplane as his family was about to relocate to india, where they could Home Educate in peace and freedom:

http://hef.org.nz/2

Re:Let me guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you develop this counterargument further? Specifically:

Please explain what part of the cited philosophy states that males with a lack of skin pigmentation and poor follicle activity are always correct.

As it so happens, I am such a male, and I don't find that correct. So if I am correct and I say I am not correct, wtf do we do now?

Re:Let me guess...

[AmiMoJo]

Education is not a right, its a good.

Nope. Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that everyone has the right "not to be denied an education". So everyone must be offered an education, and most countries go further by requiring that all children get one.

The main difference between countries is how this right is interpreted. Some, like the UK, allow home schooling as long as the curriculum is followed and standards maintained, where as others consider that in order for the child's right to be fulfilled they must have professional tuition among peers. Some consider the social aspect to be an integral part of education.

Germany is trying to and is succeeding in creating a generation of people who cannot think in any other way than what the government schools dictate

Er, no. Like Japan individualism and free thought is considered a vital and important part of the curriculum. It is recognised that in the past failure by individuals to consider matters for themselves and this discouragement of dissenting views has lead to catastrophic extremism.

Note that these are separate issues to social responsibility, with which they are often confused.

I should have phrased my question better. I did not mean how is morality taught in the sense of what is moral, but rather how do you teach people to think about morality and decide upon their own views? We have largely moved away from teaching Christian morality to simply encouraging debate and giving children the mental tools to consider it.

I think you need to do a bit more research instead of just reading that site you link to. They didn't even spell the Johansson's name correctly. Can you cite an article not sourced from a pro-home schooling website? I searched but could not find one.

Re:Let me guess...

[cyber-vandal]

Which is better? A healthcare system that treats the sick regardless of their ability to pay, or a healthcare system that will try its hardest to weasel out of treating the sick in order to keep the stock price up?

Re:Let me guess...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a very nice strawman you built there! Can my kids climb on it and get their picture taken?

Re:Let me guess...

[shutdown -p now]

The question is wether or not Scandinavia is a place where the people live in a condition where they can exercise their rights. Clearly this is not the case. They cannot Home Educate. They cannot buy and sell freely. This is immoral and unacceptable to decent people

What if the people in Scandinavia are happy with the arrangement? Are they indecent?

It sounds like your definition of "decent" here is recursive, as only people who support your extreme view are "decent" in your opinion; and then you argue that your view is the only moral one because it is the one that "decent" people support.

Re:Let me guess...

[Beautyon]

Nope. Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights states

It is patently absurd to say that because the UN prints a piece of paper, that suddenly the rights of man have increased. The only reason you cite this and accept it is that you do not believe it impacts on you directly.

If the UN decided that everyone has the right to a 'hate free internet' or AmiMoJo's blood, then you would suddenly feel very differently.

Rights are not arbitrary constructs that are created by men. they inhere in you and cannot be changed or added to.

Like Japan individualism and free thought is considered a vital and important part of the curriculum. It is recognised that in the past failure by individuals to consider matters for themselves and this discouragement of dissenting views has lead to catastrophic extremism.

This is absurd; you are claiming that everyone being taught the identical State curriculum in uniform schools will cause more individuals i.e. people who are not uniform to emerge. This is classic double-think, and no doubt, a product of Government schooling.

I think you need to do a bit more research instead of just reading that site you link to.

I linked to that site to tell the story of how that boy was kidnapped. I take it that you are not disputing those facts, and wonder if you agree that the Swedish state was 'entirely justified' in kidnapping that young man. Who knows? What I can say, is that your thinking and moral center are faulty, judging by what you have written here. You do not understand what rights are, are willing to explain away the suppression of people's rights 'for the greater good', and you appear to suffer from State induced double-think.

I put it to you that there have been groups of violent people, and the passive dupe who supported them, who used the justification of 'the greater good' to explain away their evil deeds. People who initiate force; who coerce, do violence and support it are always in the wrong, and that is a fact.

Re:Let me guess...

[AmiMoJo]

It is patently absurd to say that because the UN prints a piece of paper, that suddenly the rights of man have increased.

Ah, I see, your argument is that you think education is not a right rather than what the law says.

Well, I'm not really sure what to tell you other than I strongly disagree. Apparently so do the majority of people because there is democratic support for these rights.

It is patently absurd to say that because the UN prints a piece of paper, that suddenly the rights of man have increased.

1. I was referring to the EU convention, nothing to do with the UN. The EU is part of our democracy and legal system.

2. It is patently absurd to say that because you hold an opinion, that suddenly the rights of man have increased. You may think you have the right to a bar of chocolate but your personal views do not make it so, only the agreement of a majority does. On the other hand if the EU ratifies something as a human right all member states are bound by it, so it has real meaning and does in fact directly increase the rights of everyone living in those countries.

If the UN decided that everyone has the right to a 'hate free internet' or AmiMoJo's blood, then you would suddenly feel very differently.

Everyone does that that right. Free speech, free thought. I do not feel any differently.

This is absurd; you are claiming that everyone being taught the identical State curriculum in uniform schools will cause more individuals i.e. people who are not uniform to emerge.

You do not seem to understand the nature of the curriculum. The curriculum is a core of skills and knowledge that every child has a right to, e.g. the ability to read and write, grasp the basics of mathematics etc. However schools are free to offer other areas of study, and they all do. I was given a free choice of subjects, and then within those subjects was free to choose areas of speciality. There are legal requirements to offer these choices in the UK, although they are not considered a right per-se.

So yes, uniformity in the sense that every child has a right to learn to read, but not in the sense that everyone is forced to be the same.

I linked to that site to tell the story of how that boy was kidnapped. I take it that you are not disputing those facts

I am disputing them. I could not find a single site not affiliated with pro-home schooling groups to corroborate it. Can you provide just one source that gives a neutral account of what happened?

Re:Let me guess...

[Beautyon]

Ah, I see, your argument is that you think education is not a right rather than what the law says.

Not at all. You do not understand what the word 'right' means. A right is not the same as a privilege or guaranteed access to services that can be conferred, made available or revoked. Until you understand what a right is, with precision, its pointless to go around in circles with you.

I was referring to the EU convention, nothing to do with the UN. The EU is part of our democracy and legal system.

It doesn't matter wether you are talking about the EU or the UN; no government body can create rights out of thin air. Your point 2 in this matter demonstrates that you really and truly do not understand what rights are!

The best I can do for you is to point you to the same links that I have posted elsewhere in this thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-Lb8YitPs8

as a primer to what rights are. You are highly intelligent, and should have no trouble grasping the difference between rights and privileges.

Re:Let me guess...

[AmiMoJo]

A right is not the same as a privilege or guaranteed access to services that can be conferred, made available or revoked.

No, you don't understand what the EU Human Rights charter is. The right to an education cannot be conferred or revoked. It is not a privilege, it is That is why it is called the Human Rights charter, because it sets out exactly what human rights people have.

I think your mistake is to confuse what might be called the "natural" rights of man such as the right to life with human rights that are actually enforced. Human rights include all the "natural" rights that the majority of us can agree on, and just because you don't agree with them does not make you or your offspring exempt as long as you live with the rest of us.

Either way, it makes no difference to your argument.

Re:Let me guess...

[Beautyon]

The problem with your point of view, is that the 'rights' (which are not rights at all) conferred by the UN, EU and legislatures mean that the services and goods and money from one group of people are going to be stolen from another group:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ron+paul+healthcare+right&aq=f

This is why people who understand what rights are say that healthcare, food, education and access to the internet are not a rights; you cannot have a right to someone else's labour, money, services or goods.

and just because you don't agree with them does not make you or your offspring exempt as long as you live with the rest of us.

And this is exactly the sort of violent collectivism that I and the Libertarians despise.

"Because your offspring live with us, you are subject to our collective will, our opinions, prejudices and our violence". It means that you believe the offspring of human beings are born into contracts (the fictitious 'social contract') that binds them to other people for life, where the debts of the previous generation of strangers fall upon their shoulders and where these people are subjets of the treaties, contracts and constitutions enacted by dead men.

This, to us, is irrational, evil and violent, and you can keep it. Of course, your response will be, "you cant say that; if you try and live separately from us, our agents will come to your house and kill you". That is what your philosophy is all about; threats, killing, theft and illogic.

I don't have a problem with people who think and live differently to me, but I do have a problem with people who threaten others, and this is exactly what you are doing when you say the offspring of strangers are subject to your prejudices, ignorance and violence.

This is the fundamental difference between your type and non violent people like Libertarians; we can live with you in peace ad infinitum. You canot live with anyone in peace. Coercion threats and violence are the cornerstones of your philosophy.

Re:Let me guess...

[AmiMoJo]

Ah, this old chestnut.

We don't see giving people the right to an education or basic medical care as stealing from one group to give to another. We are all the same group, a society, and most importantly of all human beings.

What is more we are lucky to be prosperous enough to set very high moral standards by making things like education and basic medical care a human right. Internet access is not a right here but shelter is, so no-one has to sleep on the streets any more (state provided shelter is shitty but better than dying of exposure). We are proud of that, it shows our compassion as human beings towards each other, as flawed as the implementation can sometimes be.

"Because your offspring live with us, you are subject to our collective will, our opinions, prejudices and our violence"

I am interested in your assertion that things like minimal food is not a basic human right. It would seem to preclude the right to life since lack of food causes death by starvation.

If you are unwilling to allow anything which transfers wealth or labour from one person to another to be a right then it seems like protection from having your children kidnapped or being assaulted cannot be a right. Others are free to inflict violence on you if you are unable to pay for protection, and no-one else is obliged to help you.

On the contrary human rights in the EU require the state to protect you. The state is society's way of delivering and enforcing human rights. Violence and prejudice is specifically now allowed. Admittedly you are correct in saying that the collective will and opinion of society is forced upon you since you are unable to opt out of human rights, but the point about rights is that they are universal. If you were allowed not to recognise rights you didn't agree with then they would be meaningless beyond purely philosophical debates.

If there is no burden on others to recognise and facilitate your rights then what use are they anyway? Seriously, how do you reconcile having a right to something yet not being able to expect any support from anyone for it or even expecting other people to recognise it?

Re:Let me guess...

[Beautyon]

We don't see giving people the right to an education or basic medical care as stealing from one group to give to another.

You are sticking your head in the sand like an ostrich. You know perfectly well where the money for your 'basic medical care' comes from; it comes from taxation, which is theft. You keep leaving the details out because to admit them means admitting you are a supporter of crime.

You cannot give the right to education to someone; you can give the gift of education, but you cannot give someone the right to it. Not unless you are willing to steal from someone to do it. You seem to understand that what I am saying is true, because you are admitting that your society cannot exist without violence. Your ideas are immoral and wrong, and you cannot convince the members of your society to voluntarily participate in the system you advocate. That is all we need to know about it. Its ideologically and morally and financially bankrupt.

Try these for size:

Paying income tax in America is Voluntary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7mRSI8yWwg

Pete Stark Blows Up Over National Debt
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjbPZAMked0

Pelosi's Double Standard on the Minimum Wage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pFC3LKMIQo

Jan persuades George Will to accept a principle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf8Y1sENUj4

All of these people demonstrate the same sort of thinking that you are using here. It is delusional, self deception, and when each of them are confronted by the truth of the lies they believe, the results are frankly as funny as they are terrifying.

Internet access is not a right here

Not yet:

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=right+to+the+internet+un

But they are going to declare it so shortly, and no doubt, you will suddenly believe that humans have a 'right to the internet' tomorrow that they do not have today, simply because some stooge at the UN said so. Its as ridiculous as something can be ridiculous, and what is so amazing is that there are intelligent people like you who actually believe that it is true and correct.

We are proud of that, it shows our compassion as human beings towards each other, as flawed as the implementation can sometimes be.

Your compassion is based on violence. It is impure, tainted by the State that you serve and the violent theft that keeps your immoral system going. You point to these vestigial and small scale goods that are handed out while ignoring the elephant in the room; hundreds of millions killed by the State that you love so dearly, and who you think has done so much good. This is pure brainwashing; nothing else can explain your lack of perspective.

If you are unwilling to allow anything which transfers wealth or labour from one person to another to be a right then it seems like protection from having your children kidnapped or being assaulted cannot be a right.

This is a straw man. People can transfer wealth or labour in any way they like, as long as it is voluntary.

On the contrary human rights in the EU require the state to protect you. The state is society's way of delivering and enforcing human rights. Violence and prejudice is specifically now allowed.

This is more brainwashing. The right that you have pre-existed any government, and we do not need the State to keep us safe.

As for prejudice not being allowed, political correctness, hate crimes and all controls on speech are one of the more recent and vile excrescences of the criminal predatory state.

Re:Let me guess...

[AmiMoJo]

it comes from taxation, which is theft.

No, taxation is the price of civilisation. It is paid in exchange for a reasonably civil society and for services rendered such as the police, fire service, military, emergency healthcare, roads, the legal system and laws, rubbish collection, sewage etc. Can you live without any of that stuff?

What are you suggesting as an alternative to taxation? People form their own groups? Everywhere that has been tried it quickly descends into lawlessness and the tyranny of warlords. Every man for himself perhaps? Talk about supporting violence.

Re:Let me guess...

[Beautyon]

No, taxation is the price of civilisation.

In other words, WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.

And my last word to you my friend, a quote from another forum....

Japan's lower house of parliament has approved a new law requiring schools to teach children to be patriotic. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's ruling coalition voted for the law, which cites "loving our country" as a goal of Japanese pupils' compulsory education. Opposition members of parliament protested against the bill, warning that it could spread nationalism.

How do you counter an adult populace that still remembers the pains of the past, even if they gloss over the actual transgressions that caused them? Maybe you try to brainwash their children into believing that loyalty to their country always comes first.

Loyalty above morality. Loyalty above justice. Loyalty above logic. That's part of what unchecked patriotism tends to promote and it's what Japan, at least on the surface, appears to be slowly moving toward. It's a rather disturbing development that is in stark contrast to the more conciliatory German position. Modern Germany has been careful to error on the side of caution when it comes to overly nationalistic motivations and even though there are many destructive forces still present in Germany they at least seem to have the wherewithal to admit to their problems and work towards resolving them. Japan, on the other hand, appears to be far more reluctant to admit such problems, let alone address them. In fact it would appear that they have virtually no intention of truly resolving these issues and, on the surface, appear to be toying with a careful and deliberate change in direction back toward the mistakes of the past.

On Monday, Japan's upper house of parliament passed a bill setting out steps for holding a referendum on revising the country's pacifist constitution, which has not been changed since 1947. Drawn up by the US occupation authorities after WWII, it bans military force in settling international disputes and prohibits maintaining a military for warfare. But the government wants Japan to be more assertive on the world stage, with a military able to take part in peacekeeping missions abroad.

Am I the only one who is a little concerned that these 'peacekeeping' missions may only be stepping stone to a more aggressive and militant Japan in the distant future? Just think of how many wars and other acts of hostility could be prevented if people would take action in the early stages of questionable new directions instead of waiting until it's far too late.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/6669061.stm

Looks like they already got to you, ay?!

Re:Let me guess...

[AmiMoJo]

Nice, you ignored my argument entirely, because you have no answer. You advocate anarchism.

I'm coining a new version of the Godwin called a Beautyon. It is invoked when someone compares you to big brother and accuses you of doublethink. Like the Godwin it happens when the person in question has lost the argument but is still outraged and so accuses the other of extremism and oppression.

Whenever anyone does this I'll link back to here as an example. Thanks for the help, you just saved me from writing long rebuttals when I can simply refer back to this thread.

Open Government?

[The1stImmortal]

Hey, score one for open government I suppose. Hard to keep things hidden under "State Secrets" if Facebook keeps setting everything to "public" ;)

Big deal - countries tap whatever

[G3ckoG33k]

Big deal...

Here is a plausible scheme

930 [Country] Taps Free Men To Rewrite Its Constitution
1900 [Country] Taps Newspapers To Rewrite Its Constitution
1920 [Country] Taps The Radio Show To Rewrite Its Constitution
1940 [Country] Taps Telephone Company To Rewrite Its Constitution
1960 [Country] Taps The TV Show To Rewrite Its Constitution
2010 [Country] Taps Internet Site To Rewrite Its Constitution

So, where is the relevant news?

Re:Big deal - countries tap whatever

[Anonymous Coward]

The part where this is actually happening instead of the constitution being written by the elite behind closed doors.

homeschool is synonymous with Christian extremist

[Anonymous Coward]

In the States, those most likely to homeschool are Christian extremists who want to shelter their children from heretical ideas such as critical thinking.

It is very likely this poster is a radical Christian, and his views originate from the extreme right-wing dogma that has been preached to him.

+1 Like

[sourcerror]

I just hope, they don't vote about it with clicking "Like".

"Tapped Facebook"

[Hal_Porter]

I tapped someone I met on Facebook once. I got a really nasty disease.

Re:FIRST!

[Anonymous Coward]

Depending on your "friends", it might be very similar.

Summer Wars

[Anonymous Coward]

This move reminds me so much of the movie Summer Wars... it didn't go well.

B'cos /. is in English

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is Unicode support on /. so important? It's a technical site in English. If a bunch of Russians want to post an article or thread, it would be more appropriate for a .ru site. /. should be more concerned about going IPv6, rather than Unicode support!

Re:B'cos /. is in English

[shutdown -p now]

It's not a "technical site" so much so as it is a site for nerds with a somewhat technical focus (but no restrictions for going offtopic). The range of topics discussed in comments is very wide, and it's not uncommon for a word or a citation in some foreign language - not just European ones, but also e.g. Japanese or Arabic - to be useful. Most commonly this arises in names of people and places.

Re:B'cos /. is in English

[Rei]

There's always transliterations, but a lot of times they're really bad. It drives me crazy that a common transliteration of the Icelandic "eth" (which *does* work on Slashdot (ð), unlike the thorn() is to simply write "d". It doesn't sound like "d". Eth is pronounced like the "Th" in "Them". At least transliterate it as "dh", people... Icelandic is hard enough for English speakers to pronounce as it is.

Re:helo world I am syrian and lesbian persecuted

[Dunbal]

Report to the soldiers in the tank that is just down the road from your house.

How accurate is that count?

[damn_registrars]

The claim that 2/3rds of the Icelandic population is on facebook, based on the number of facebook accounts listed in Iceland? That seems sketchy to me. I would be hesitant to accept every one of those accounts as actually belonging to a real person, actually living in Iceland. Back when I used ICQ, I used to say I was in Uzbekistan, but I don't think the ICQ guys were silly enough to count me as an Uzbek citizen.

Re:How accurate is that count?

[Anonymous Coward]

1) change location to iceland
2) interefere in democratic process
3) ????
4) Profit!!!

Re:How accurate is that count?

[gislifb]

Iceland is such a small country and public birth records are 100% so this is not an issue. You can go online and trace your family history hundreds of years back so this is not an issue. Also I don't really see the problem with someone going online and giving the "constitutional-commity" ideas that they can then discuss and maybe have a nationwide election about...

Re:How accurate is that count?

[damn_registrars]

If I was vague, I apologize. I am not questioning the notoriously sound Icelandic records. I am questioning facebook's claim instead. Did they actually verify that the Icelandic accounts they claim to have actually all correspond to real living people, on a 1:1 basis? It isn't exactly hard to establish more than one account on facebook, or to give less-than-truthful information to them as to where you are.

Facebook sucks...

[Anonymous Coward]

If 2/3 of the population is using one platform, couldn't that automatically mean that most of the discussion would take place there, regardless of anyone's wishes? I think you may be seeing an agenda where there is only acceptance of reality.

Acceptance of reality? I loathe Facebook, I don't want to join Facebook and I find it extremely galling that people are being forced to join Facebook to be able to participate in the rewriting of the constitution of their country. It's kind of like being told "...well just accept reality and buy a Windows PC if you want to be able to file your tax return because the IRS web site uses Windows only plugins and we are not about to change that.". How hard is it to set up one of the many open source discussion forum software packages on some government run server and thus create an official, neutral, forum for citizens to discuss these things? That way everybody can participate without being forced to join the hive-mind that is Facebook.

Government must issue the currency, not a Bank!

[rcb1974]

The hand that giveth is above the hand that receiveth. If the government gets its money from the bank, then the bank is in control. Iceland's constitution should ensure that only the government has the right to issue the Icelandic currency and that currency must be debt free! If Iceland does that, and they keep the amount of currency under control so that there is no deflation or inflation, then everyone will flock to their currency and they will be rich.

Re:Government must issue the currency, not a Bank!

[lwsimon]

How do you propose they stop inflation/deflation of a national currency?

There is a way, I'm just curious if you realize what you're proposing.

Re:Government must issue the currency, not a Bank!

[rcb1974]

Simple. The value is determined by the quantity. If the value starts to decrease, stop printing. If the value increases, print. Even a simple bang-bang controller would do the trick, or if you wanted to get a little fancier, just use a PID loop. To decrease the amount of currency in the system, they could just tax a little bit.

Re:Government must issue the currency, not a Bank!

[lwsimon]

So how about when a bank takes $100,000 on deposit, then loans out $500,000?

Re:Government must issue the currency, not a Bank!

[Anonymous Coward]

Fractional reserve banking is another fraudulent practice that should be explicitly forbidden by the Icelandic constitution.

We tried this before

[Anonymous Coward]

A deputy suggested to me that we should have our constitution rewritten on Facebook as an evaluation. I was skeptical at first but he explained the benefits of using Facebook instead of using a constituent assembly. I decided to let him to try to see how the thing got on. Besides, our Prime Minister had been using Facebook at home and he hadn't reported any problems - why not try it for writing our new constitution ?
Once he'd got the Facebook discussion up and running with people coming in we let them try it out. It all seemed fine to start with: Facebook was a pretty good replacement for those shitty constituent judges we'd used before and the government could still do his work as normal.

Alas it did not stay that way. After a few days, I had lost count of the number of complaints received from our ministers. They could not do things they could before (like proposing laws and voting). The final straw came when our finance minister lost several hours trying loggin in when Facebook suddenly froze up, effectively destroying our political infrastructure.

Needless to say, the Facebook community offered no support whatsoever. I made the deputy reinstall our previous constitution and lets just say he's not voting with us anymore.

Where are mod points when I need them??

[Anonymous Coward]

And when a government says "It is possible to register through other means, but most of the discussion takes place via Facebook", alarm bells should be going off to understand that what they're actually saying is: "you can also write us an e-mail, or a letter, or call us - but we're going to either A. ignore you or B. ask you to participate in our discussions at Facebook". And that sets dangerous precedent.

This is basically what is happening, Icelandic politics and discussions on important matters like this have largely migrated to Facebook which, as you point out, is alarming. These days anybody who can summon a few thousand Facebook drones and get them to sign a petition can torpedo just about any law that the government is trying to pass because our president is a publicity sensitive demagogue who can be relied upon to give in to the pressure group that screams the loudest and refuse to ratify the law which automatically refers the law to a plebiscite. It's basically mob rule by Facebook which is suboptimal because sometimes governments have to pass laws that certain loud voiced pressure groups don't like (cuts in social entitlements, speed limits, environmental and wildlife conservation laws, etc...). In this kind of an environment passing necessary but unpopular laws is practically impossible. If you aren't on Facebook you have all sorts of other options to contribute to the discussion but without a Facebook account you can't contribute to most of the discussion and you can't sign those important Facebook petitions that govern whether a law will be sunk or not by the president.

Re:Where are mod points when I need them??

[Foobar of Borg]

our president is a publicity sensitive demagogue who can be relied upon to give in to the pressure group that screams the loudest and refuse to ratify the law which automatically refers the law to a plebiscite.

Wait a minute! Obama is also president of Iceland?

Should use 4chan instead

[Anonymous Coward]

They should use 4chan instead - the first rule in the new constitution:

TITS OR GTFO :)

Obligatory Snark

[Anonymous Coward]

Here, take ours, we're not using it anymore.

Why did they have to be so professional...

[Anonymous Coward]

They should have used YouTube instead.

Future of Democracy? Maybe... but still lacking

[tomweeks]

Really cool and brave move (embracing Internet Democracy). But the three big challenges that need to be addressed are:
1) Address the inequality/access issue
2) Deal with user authentication + anonymity issue
3) Maintain national sovereignty

If I see those key points addressed.. Internet Democracy might be worth its weight in electrons. :)

Such a system could get rid of soooo much governmental cruft!

Tweeks

Middle class kids mucking about again

[Anonymous Coward]

Every generation has them. The kids of the middle class families who already rule. They don't like work so they mess around with stuff and invent pretend roles for themselves.

They get together and believe that they are being radical while obvious to the disenfranchised whose cause they claim to be championing. When they grow up they will be able to take over from their parents and the poor will still be poor and the rich will still be rich. But messing around with the constitution is certainly more fun than actually getting a real job.

Facebook or not, nothing of any significance will change.

hmm, so it's facebook

[Anonymous Coward]

that rules Iceland, better than the IMF I suppose!

They should learn from the American experience

[iMadeGhostzilla]

Congress Abandons WikiConstitution
September 28, 2005 | ISSUE 4139

WASHINGTON, DC -- Congress scrapped the open-source, open-edit, online version of the Constitution Monday, only two months after it went live. "The idea seemed to dovetail perfectly with our tradition of democratic participation," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said. "But when so-called 'contributors' began loading it down with profanity, pornography, ASCII art, and mandatory-assault-rifle-ownership amendments, we thought it might be best to cancel the project." Congress intends to restore the Constitution to its pre-Wiki format as soon as an unadulterated copy of the document can be found.

Source: TheOnion

Re:They should learn from the American experience

[Dachannien]

Reverted 432,272 edits as vandalism.

Colbert-land

[goombah99]

One can see this coming, Iceland will shortly be renamed to colbert-land.

Borrowing is a risk, use force otherwise

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose the folks who loaned Iceland money lost their investment, so sad. I'm looking forward to the United States going bankrupt so we don't have to pay the investors. If the people making the business risk don't like it I suppose they could use force...

Facebook Slide Has Begun

[Anonymous Coward]

People are abandoning their Facebook accounts more and more as awareness about employee candidate diligence searches and privacy concerns increases.

Like Myspace, Facebook is a fad, and anyone who has passed through the Wow, I Connected With All The Old Friends I Want to Connect With phase is now realizing that having a page with their real name and photo on it is as stupid as taping their driver's license to their car window facing out.

Welcome to Stupidville

[Anonymous Coward]

Looks like Iceland is not only economically but also intellectually bankrupt... Failbook is like the collection of stupid people on this planet, you're not its user, you are its product, you stupid fucks!

Too bad it takes a Crisis to open gov'ts to ideas

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, the US gov't still resists acting on its citizens' desire to STOP going off to wars.
In fairness, such resistance is rampant, in other gov'ts, on both sides of several wars.

So, I await the day, when:

1. we can rule gov't, eg, by binding citizens' referendum decisions ("Pull our the mil.")
2. we can choose our own country, to both support (with our taxes) & live under the laws of.

Someone (speaking in a talk, recently released on TED.com) promotes
the idea of "Charter Cities" eg, for places that people are leaving (eg,
due to awful conditions, including gov't corruption, fighting in the streets,
etc.)...

So, the speaker suggests that - inside such troubled lands - some large
regions can be set aside (like 'economic zones' already established in
several places, in the world), in which another country's laws apply.

You want more freedom? Move to such a region, instead of moving to
the country itself (ie, with all the immigration & language issues that may
would come with migrating across country borders), & - still in your own
country - enjoy similar levels of freedom.

Why not take this to the next step, where:

. People can choose to become "virtual citizens" of another country

. They'd still like in the same country, but can live where ever they like
. while there

. It's just that - in the Tax Office - they'd record that this person's tax
. contribution would be sent off to, say, Sweden, Switzerland, etc.

. Also, as that "country-choice" decision would be recorded in the
. Police database, police would have to apply the chosen country/s
. law before deciding whether or not to arrest, fine, etc. :-)

Online Law-making

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny it happened now. The thing is I've been building the system for online law-making for a couple months now, it's almost ready - http://lawdelta.org. How about that?