Slashdot Mirror
India Moves To Censor Social Media
An anonymous reader writes "India's Telecoms minister has prompted an uproar after it was revealed he met with executives from Google and Facebook to pressure them into screening 'objectionable' content. Critics argue it is a dangerous step down China's censorship path. 'He denied such a demand was censorship. There is some content on the Internet that "any normal human being would be offended by," he said. The government has asked social media companies to develop a way to eliminate offensive content as soon as it is created, no matter what country it is created in, he said.'
The real story is this: India Moves TO Censor Social Media ... but it fails in the face of /. dupes./a.
You can't handle the truth.
The only route that is left to us at this point. in all countries, around entire world. we the people should just ignore those would-be controllers.
Read radical news here
What will all those Indian FB and +1 social media spammers do when they are suddenly out of work?
Silencing dissent... Yet another American "job" getting outsourced.
I jest, but it's not like the US (where I was born and live) hasn't tried this sort of thing. The Internet kill switch, taking down sites without due process, and the need to filter the whole country.
This sort of shit needs to stop. Which will only happen when the government is "for the people" again, and not "for the corporations."
Unfortunately a politician's view of "objectionable" is usually what the general population of their countries calls "political satire" or a "joke".
Which isn't surprising, seeing as these kind of censorship attempts are a joke in and of themselves.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I'm offended people like him come to power.
But that is the exact sort of character that democratic systems allow into power. The world wide, elections are won by those who are charasmatic, say the right things on camera and during conferences - then once they are in office, all of their "true" goals come to light as they try to keep themselves in power. I don't want to Godwin this thread, but have a look at this democratic election in 1932 and have a look at how people were misguided into who and what they voted for.
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me unless I'm China or India. How long do these countries have to be civilized before they develop enough confidence to withstand an insult? What are we at now, 5,000 years, 8,000 years and they still can't take a few unkind words? Maybe they should think about starting again, from scratch. Scratching in the dirt with a stick, to plant some food that is, right back to the beginning.
Apparently, all the smart Indians have already emigrated.
There is some content on the Internet that "any normal human being would be offended by," he said.
I can't say I've ever seen content that I was offended by, aside from something directed at me personally, and I certainly can't think of any content that every normal human being would be offended by. Disgusted, sure. Saddened, disappointed, startled, but not offended.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
..any normal human being
And who, exactly, gets to decide what a "normal" human being is, and what this mythical alleged "normal" human being would consider "offensive" or "non-offensive"? What's next for this jackass? Is he going to "decide" what is and is not art? *facepalm*
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
He obviously fails to understand the core nature of the Internet. Maybe he should go back to the spaghetti code factory he probably came from.
If "Democracy" is so good, so perfect, why can't the Indians elect someone with more integrity?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Here's a relevant quote from the article:
Telecoms and Information Technology Minister Kapil Sibal met executives from Facebook, Google, Yahoo and Microsoft Monday to ask them to screen content, but no agreement with the companies was reached. Stinking of rotten body odor and unwashed genitalia, he excused himself from the streetside interview and urinated on a curb, hypocritically kicking a dog that was trying to do the same thing.
Returning to the coffee shop where the interview was taking place, spots of stray urine all over the crotch of his pants, Kapil gave both his pits a whif and resumed the interview. The representatives from Facebook, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo asked him what his background was. Kapil stated that all of them should know, as Kapil is a coder for an outsourcing company with all of the big four as clients. "Hell," he stated, "it's the least you could do for me and my coworkers, we write your software." He then pointed at a pile of dog feces near the table and said, "You pay us instead of Americans to write code like that - Your country must be veddy veddy bad!"
When asked what Kapil's plans for the future were, he said, "Well, politics, obviously, but my team and I are finishing up the new Slashdot website. It works everytime, with every browser. They came to us because they couldn't make it themselves, and I am happy to say that is why people come to India for best coding practices. We are also responsible for adding all of the flashy stuff to Youtube, and for making Yahoo relevant again." After scratching his testes through his pants, Kapil coughed and said, "that's all. Thank you, come again," as he pulled a long stick of jerky out of his pocket, held it against his crotch pointing outward, and asked all of the representatives to shake it one-by-one. They all reluctantly did, as their holiday bonuses depended a lot on their sending of American jobs to Kapil's stewardship.
there were elections there, maybe, but the Sturmabteilung and other organs of the Nazi party used violence and intimidation to corrupt the voting process.
it doesn't mean they were democratic elections.
the first things that the Nazis did when they took power in 1933 were to abolish all democratic institutions, i.e. they didn't have any more elections, the parliament didn't debate issues, there was no more independent judicial system, free speech was destroyed, the free press was abolished, and every institution of society was subordinated under Hitler and the Nazi hierarchy.
why? because he would have been voted back out of office. that is the strength of democracy... which balances its weakness.
Application forms for the Catholic priesthood are available in the lobby
Start with Slashdot dupes.
The idea that one guy can speak for all normal people is one thing, but when coupled with his thought that, "Yeah...we'll just stick a bunch of normal people in a room and make them delete clearly offensive material off the internet as soon as it's created" is frakking ADORABLE.
Obviously this happens because people are generally stupid (don't take it as a flamebait, it's just an observation), and people vote for those, who promise them something regardless of long term consequences. That's how the character from your comment got into power, that's how people like Hoover and FDR and Obama got into power, they promise things that will deliver short term satisfaction but the long term consequences are always disastrous. What's funny is how many complain that corporations only look at short term gains, but that's not specific to corporations, it's just how people most often behave because they don't normally spend any amount of time thinking for the long term and even when they do, most of the time they lack the capacity to appreciate the real consequences of their choices.
Here are some examples, I am going to post them as questions first:
1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution?
2. Is it a correct thing to allow the government live on debt?
3. Is it a correct thing to allow the government control money supply and cost?
4. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to insure people in any way (from deposit insurance to health and retirement)?
5. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to tax people's incomes?
6. Is it a correct thing to give government power to provide security against criminal activity by diminishing individual liberties?
7. Is it a correct thing to allow government regulate business?
8. If these same questions were posed differently, would you have recognized them in their true form?
---
The correct long term answer to items 1-7 is always a 'no', it cannot be a 'yes' under any circumstances, but that's the long term thinking.
In a short term answering with a 'yes' often seems like a good idea for unsophisticated voters (and those who don't care or immediately stand to gain from the government power that will immediately provide them with something like a contract or a special privilege).
But the fact remains that majority of people don't have ability to think long term, they don't have ability and mental capacity to recognize the real consequences and often they have prejudices and ideologies that would guarantee that they will answer those questions the wrong way. That's why people like that come to power.
You can't handle the truth.
Sorry, the correct answer to 1 through 7 is yes. If it was no, we'd be libertarians or libertards.
I always get amazed by the "I don't like it so it should not EXIST" attitude. In democratic countries politicians use it to please people who chose them, so the problem is in the mindset of the majority. For politicians it is always easier to play with those things that don't require a lot of effort.
.. the first things that the Nazis did when they took power in 1933 were to abolish all democratic institutions, i.e. they didn't have any more elections, the parliament didn't debate issues, there was no more independent judicial system, free speech was destroyed, the free press was abolished, and every institution of society was subordinated under Hitler and the Nazi hierarchy.
This is exactly what some of our "democratic" governments would like to do. However, they have more subtle and clever ways of subverting democracy that are far more effective.
the above comment proves my point.
You can't handle the truth.
This makes perfect sense, because offensiveness is completely objective. In fact, the terms of being offended are as woven into the human condition as being bi-pedal and having five fingers; as is apparently the humans knack for devolving society. Great stuff India, this is definitively what you should spend your time and resources enforcing.
Obviously this happens because people are generally stupid (don't take it as a flamebait, it's just an observation), and people vote for those, who promise them something regardless of long term consequences.
What do you expect? They're government educated by a system that is more concerned about not hurting anyone's feelings than it is with things like dialectic, critical thinking, and instilling intellectual independence. Most are far too passive (something promoted in the media by repeated example) to recognize this as a problem on their own and educate themselves despite the Information Age. This page sums it up nicely. The "lesson of dependency" is the hinge on which all the others rest.
I'll highlight the most glaring stupidity of this proposal, the unspoken and unacknowledged aspect it deliberately ignores.
There is some content on the Internet that "any normal human being would be offended by," he said.
... that you almost definitely won't see unless you are looking for it. It reminds me of people who call up a talk show to tell the host how much they hate him, his views, and his show ... yet they're quite familiar with all of it. You'd think a person would go with one of the multitude of other choices and listen to something other than whatever he finds offensive, but that would mean having nothing to bitch about. Nothing to bitch about would mean being denied their five minutes of climbing up on their high horse and feeling superior to someone else while they pontificate against them. This is very important to nothing human beings with no real sense of purpose in their lives and would be a great loss to them.
There are things I don't like so I don't watch them, listen to them, read them, etc, but it never occurs to me to feel offended. I don't get any pleasure or satisfaction from trying to force my will on others because I'm not an insecure fevered ego. If I were, I'd feel a sacred duty to work on fixing it while never making it someone else's problem. So, the fact that I don't enjoy something doesn't make me feel like no one else should (assuming it's just a matter of taste -- i.e. I don't feel that way about armed robbery -- since some of you are childish and jump all over every little thing not spelled out for you).
"I'm offended!" is a covert and thus cowardly way of saying "therefore, you should yield to me and change it to accommodate my tastes". It's an emotional appeal unconsciously designed to conceal a desire to control. The people who want to control others using this method are far too timid to try gaining any kind of domination or power to get what they want, so they go for the pity appeal instead. They try to gain the sympathy of someone who already has power or authority and by proxy obtain the control they desire. If they are thwarted, they accuse the authority of being insensitive and try to ridicule or shame (i.e. manipulate) them into doing their will.
The minority who weren't looking for "offensive" material and saw it anyway were duped by crapflooders, goatse trolls and the like. These are the same disruptive types who aren't going to respect censorship laws. They would view them as a challenge. If anything, using Tor or some other international, jurisdiction-crossing proxy to evade censorship would only add to their thrill.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
So how exactly do you propose to stop criminals without imposing on their civil liberties? How the heck do you propose that the constitution is even to be used if you are not going to interpret it? It's just inkblots on paper if you don't read it and convert it from ink to thoughts and concepts.
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution?
...
The correct long term answer to items 1-7 is always a 'no', it cannot be a 'yes' under any circumstances
...which means you have a constitution that states things so precisely that it's impossible to draw more than one conclusion about what anything it says means. Do you have an example of such a constitution? (Hint: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" is not part of such a constitution - what's a "limited Time"? This is not, BTW, an idle question, given, for example, various Acts of Congress that keep extending the lifetime of copyrights.)
That's why I propose to establish a Sortition system where a body of randomly selected jurors (obviously screened for violent crimes, mental health, etc) would be given governing power over the region the jurors are from. The State Jury might decide to elect one of the State Governor candidates as State Minister, but they will retain power to oversee and override his/her decisions, as well as the power to remove or add members to the Minister's Cabinet. The system could be established at any single level or number of levels but I can see it working from City Juries to Federal Juries replacing the President.
The same should be used for the legislative branch. There is no reason to select 2 rich guys to represent a million average people, specially when these 2 guys aren't even required to follow on their candidacy promises. A representative sample of the people who will actually live under the laws they pass is a much better choice. Heck, a Grand Jury is about 23 people strong and that's just to take a guy to trial.
And yes, the system isn't perfect. The Jury might turn out to be filled with racist, homophobic ass-holes. It might turn out to be composed entirely of ignorant creationist folk who can be corrupted, bribed or blackmailed. But we already elect people who are racist, homophobic, ignorant creationist people who can be corrupted, bribed or blackmailed.
And I'm sure blackmailing 23 people is harder than blackmailing just one.
But... the future refused to change.
At first I thought you made the AC comment and then posted this as meta-humor, but you usually sign your AC posts.
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution?
No, there is already a mechanism for it. If it's broke, amend it.
2. Is it a correct thing to allow the government live on debt?
No, debt has to be paid eventually otherwise it's theft, not borrowing.
3. Is it a correct thing to allow the government control money supply and cost?
Obviously yes; by definition money is a government construct, it exists by law otherwise business would mint their own cash or we'd barter. [Fiat currency is fiat because you can use it to pay tax, that's what makes it special compared to an "IOU"]
4. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to insure people in any way (from deposit insurance to health and retirement)?
This is a gray question, it depends on the person. Either system is sustainable though guaranteed safety nets tend to make places more pleasant in the highly probable event something goes wrong.
5. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to tax people's incomes?
Yes, automatically follows 3.
6. Is it a correct thing to give government power to provide security against criminal activity by diminishing individual liberties?
No, reducing liberty and privacy to prevent crime is also known as pre-crime. i.e. trying to arrest people because they might have been thinking about doing something illegal. Police and the court system exist to mediate disputes when they occur, not outright prevent everything before it happens. (liberty or absolute safety, pick one).
7. Is it a correct thing to allow government regulate business?
Yes, businesses are government constructs that exist by law, they rely on other laws like contract law (employment, supply deals, etc) as well so are, by definition, government regulated (only legal contracts are enforceable, guess who decides what is legal). Businesses which exist outside this system are called Organized Crime Syndicates (eg. Mafia) which have their own private police (enforcers) who carry out sentences (kill you) for breaking company by-laws. It's interesting that the government-free business construct (OCS) ends up looking like a government and business rolled into one (fascist state).
The correct long term answer to items 1-7 is always a 'no', it cannot be a 'yes' under any circumstances, but that's the long term thinking.
I suppose, if you were prone to short term thinking about what is good for you personally right now without regard for anyone else or the long-term consequences, then "no" for everything makes sense. Other people who know anything about history, law, economics and logic might not feel the same way.
Wait a second. The answer to #1 is "no"? How the hell do you write a Constitution in such a way that it doesn't require interpretation? Even a plain English sentence requires interpretation, let alone something written a couple hundred years ago because of changes in language. A Constitution will always be a document in need of revision, albeit sparingly, and it will always require interpretation. That's what courts are for, for example, and why we have legislators that if they get sufficient consensus and pushing from their constituents they can amend the Constitution.
Oh, its even worse than that. While interpreting the constitution should naturally be done with great care and respect, its worth noting that it is DOCUMENTED FACT, that several clauses in the constitution are intentionally vague because no more specific language could be agreed on. In other words, the founding fathers pretty much wrote several of the arguments that still exist today straight into our constitution knowingly ...
1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution?
Yes. The societal context in which the Constitution is viewed changes, as do the very meanings of words (such an "insure" in the preamble to the Constitution, which now relates almost exclusively to financial matters). As an example, consider the curtailing of "free speech" to exclude speech which causes "imminent lawless action". Falsely warning about a bomb in a crowded building is extremely likely to cause assault, theft, and vandalism as people try to escape. Merely advocating illegal behavior at an indeterminate time in the future is not imminent, and is thus not prohibited. There are, of course, other laws that can affect how speech may be presented. You can not abuse or harass others with your ideas, for example. In my opinion, nobody should have a Constitutionally-protected right to be a jackass.
2. Is it a correct thing to allow the government live on debt?
Yes, more or less. First, a large portion of the government's debt is long-term obligations that are not yet fully funded, nor expected to be. If the government has said it will pay several million dollars for a new fighter jet over the next 20 years, that full several-million dollar figure is counted as debt, even though only a small part of it is actually due now. Planning for future expenses is a reasonable thing to do, no? Another large portion of debt is a financial device to free up quantities of money for other uses. More on that shortly.
3. Is it a correct thing to allow the government control money supply and cost?
Yes, when necessary. The government acts (financially) as a large single entity, so if anyone's going to control the money supply, it's going to be the government. Is that control really necessary, though?
According to modern monetary theory, the answer is again "yes". A strong economy is one where money moves freely and quickly, and everyone gets what they want. In other words, "to each according to his need". When the government adds money to the economy through the Federal Reserve Bank, it also adds an equal amount of debt. Increasing the monetary supply allows the public to have more money to spend immediately, with the knowledge that said money will disappear again shortly. It enables a strong economy to be built (or rebuilt), and when the economy is running again, the money supply can be reduced gradually to improve efficiency and reduce the effects of inflation.
There is a riddle about a man dying, leaving his 19 horses to be divided among his three sons, with the eldest receiving half, the middle receiving one fourth, and the youngest receiving one fifth. After trying for several days to figure out how to divide a horse, the local wise man came and brought his own horse, adding it to the pool. The eldest received 10, the middle received 5, and the youngest received 4. The wise man then took his horse and left.
The economy works similarly. With the temporary addition of money, transactions can be processed faster and easier, and operations can go more smoothly. The rapid response of the Federal Reserve Bank reduces the effect of recessions, and speeds recovery.
4. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to insure people in any way (from deposit insurance to health and retirement)?
Yes, when it's a matter that will "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare".
Deposit insurance reduces the effect of bank runs. Before 1933, when a bank was in danger of closing, customers would rush to get their money out, before it became lost in the disappearing bank. Since banks can't keep all of their holdings on hand at once, some people would inevitably lose their savings. Now, there is no need to make that rush to withdraw, because even if banks are closed, the money is protected. Less damage from bank runs means the banks keep more money available, are are less likely to
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Here's my take on those:
1. Interpretation of the constitution might be considered to include such things as interpreting "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" to include e-mail messages, computer records and the contents of your cell phone during a traffic stop. Interpreting it _not_ to mean those things is also an interpretation (a bad one), but both ways of seeing it are interpretations. It's a 200+ year old document. Even with the amendment process, it still has a lot of language that only sorta-kinda fits the modern world. Generally the intent is pretty clear, and I'll admit that politicians and judges pretending they can't see that intent or that many modern inventions still fit the framework just fine is a real problem. But, for good or bad, the constitution pretty much requires interpretation.
2. That one's a no brainer. The government should never, ever go into debt without extraordinary circumstances such as a truly huge natural disaster. The fact that the US government has been living beyond its means for something like thirty years is truly disturbing. Basically, just about everyone who has held high office in this country during that entire time, except for a scarce few, deserve to be fired for gross incompetence for this state of affairs.
3. I would have to say that controlling money supply and cost is and pretty much always has been a basic function of government. Not just in the US, but in pretty much every government that's ever had some form of money. Suggesting that it be done some other way is fine and good, but at present our only other real alternative is to fall back to a pure barter economy or to use bitcoins, which aren't really proven yet. Some future technological advance might allow us to shift to an energy based economy or something like that, but we just aren't there yet. All that said, the government should act responsibly in its role as controller of the money supply (a role which it has actually kind of doled out to semi-private third parties).
4. As for giving the government power to insure people in any way, I have to say yes. Yes to insuring bank deposits because it's been proven necessary to protect people from financial disasters. The crucial thing is that the insurance should be to protect the depositers, not the banks. If a bank screws things up like that, the government should sweep in, nationalize it, weed management aggressively, voiding compensation requirements in contracts as it sees fit, get it back on track and then sell it via some open bidding process so it doesn't just get handed over to cronies for a song. For retirement, yes, but the money collected should be handled responsibly, not shamelessly raided. For healthcare, good gravy yes! The system the US has right now is an abomination. It's pretty much the worst healthcare in the developed world for the highest price. When you consider the sorts of things government is good for, pooling risk across the entire population is one of those things.
5. Governments need taxes to operate. Nearly all governments have an income tax of some sort. You could have a set tax amount that everyone pays regardless of income. Of course, if it's high enough to actually support government operations, then it's going to financially crush poorer people and barely be noticed by richer people. Poorer people doesn't just mean the lazy, it can also include people who can't work this year because an anvil fell on them. Plus, what about children? Just remember, if you make any exceptions for anyone, then you're once again taxing based on income, just with coarser granularity.
6. The US government is certainly going way too far on that one at present. Trouble is, this is one of those things where there's always a balance. For example, you'd be hard pressed to find many people who think convicted criminals shouldn't lose some liberties, at least for a time. On the other hand, the TSA is now groping people getting onto (and off of!) trains and buses. Even ignoring the
What are you saying? There's all kinds of good reasons for this. Like, uh... think of the children! Yeah, that's it. And the terrorists, too! What about people infringing upon the copyright of others (the most serious crime of all)?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Wait a second. The answer to #1 is "no"? How the hell do you write a Constitution in such a way that it doesn't require interpretation? Even a plain English sentence requires interpretation, let alone something written a couple hundred years ago because of changes in language.
I'm sure the belief that one need not interpret the Constitution is a result of such brilliance as: A=A.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
(A group whom I suspect is larger than the group of "normal people").
The world, and thus social media is full of offensive content, trying to eliminate it all is a fool's game.
People like me would be offended by bland social media bereft of any offensive content.
Question is wrong.. should say 'Is it a correct thing to let *legislators* interpret the constitution".. Your courts do it all the time.. it's their mandate, in fact..
The government is in deep shit. First they announced FDA in retail, and now the minister wants to censor social media.
These are attempts to keep UPA scams and Lokpal off the headlines.
That's the thing though. I'm reading it literally. If taken at face value, your statement would, in fact, make a country completely inoperable.
Supporter of the +1 Over Dramatic mod option. In memory of apk.
The constitution was only meant to be temporary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Question is wrong.. should say 'Is it a correct thing to let *legislators* interpret the constitution".. Your courts do it all the time.. it's their mandate, in fact..
Well, to be fair, the courts' ability to interpret the consitution is not actually explicitly stated in said document. They asserted that power in an early Supreme Court decision ( Marbury vs. Madison) and didn't get impeached for it -- in part because it actually reduced the authority of the court by stating congress didn't have the power to extend the authority of the court, a fascinating slight of hand, Chief Justice Rehnquist noted in multiple speeches on the history of the court -- thus making it the law of the land. However when most people refer to "interpreting the constitution" they are, in fact, referring to judges doing so, and as a reference to the rather curious concept of 'activist judges'. All that said, this is hugely offtopic, and mods should probably take note accordingly. I just can't help myself on such an interesting point of discussion.
1. No (but you phrased it badly it should be allow reinterpriation as it had to be interpreted at least once otherwise it can't be applied), 2. No, 3. Yes, 4. . Yes (forcing them to on the other hand is questionable) 5. Yes (otherwise there would be no government), 6. No, 7. Yes, 8. Yes
5. Is necessary for the government to exist and to serve its function
3 and 7 are functions of the government (at least to an extent) and if they weren't the state would be very close to anarchy and there would be very large wealth gaps and no financial security for anyone.
4. Is broadly open to interpretation, but I would point out that the government is there to provide insurance against foreign powers. Social Security also makes a nation more prosperous and stable which is good for everyone. Furthermore providing insurance does not degrade democratic or human rights which is the key indicator for if government policy is acceptable.
null
Um, I don't think interpret means what you think it means. You your self are in fact interpreting it literally, however sometimes people don't always agree on the literal interpretation. I agree that it should be taken literally though.
null
1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution?
So who holds the "True" interpretation of the document? How do they prove, beyond a doubt that they hold the "true" truth, the one that was locked firmly in the founder's heads. Basically your saying "my interpretation is right and because your interpretation is different, it is wrong, since mine is right". Which is a pretty blatant fallacy.
3. Is it a correct thing to allow the government control money supply and cost?
I don't see why not. Government exists for "the people", corporations exist "for themselves", someone has to protect the former from the latter, which is why the former all got together and formed governments in the first place.
5. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to tax people's incomes?
How isn't it? Government's provide a service (notice the phrase "provide for the general welfare...), and these services have to be paid for. People tell their governments to do something, the government has to somehow procure funds to carry out the people's will.
6. Is it a correct thing to give government power to provide security against criminal activity by diminishing individual liberties?
Your reading of political philosophy must be shallow, or selective. Your liberties end where mine begin, this is one of the primary (THE primary) functions of government. Government, by nature, is the sacrifice of certain individual liberties for the protection of the liberties of the whole. This has been the function of societies long before formal governments ever existed. Go live somewhere without effective government, and tell me how your liberties fair.
7. Is it a correct thing to allow government regulate business?
See above.
The correct long term answer to items 1-7 is always a 'no', it cannot be a 'yes' under any circumstances, but that's the long term thinking.
Why's that? Because you say so?
But the fact remains that majority of people don't have ability to think long term,
Looking at the "long term" history of government, I'd say answering "yes" to most of those questions have fared better than answering "no" to them. I personally enjoy my rights, my girlfriend enjoys her vote and equal rights, my black friends enjoy not having to work your plantation, and I'm very happy that I wasn't mangled in some factory as a child. I'm also very happy that my tax dollars have went to keeping me from dying at 35, or being shot in the streets, or dying because my neighbors house caught fire. I'm also happy that my food is safe to eat, etc... The long term outlook is pretty good. I don't know what the future holds, obviously, but the past is a pretty good predictor.
Sure, the world isn't perfect. Nor will it ever be. Though I'm glad would be tyrants, such as yourself, are held in check by the evil government. Your "utopia' sounds like hell.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
I'm sorry, can't resist to argue you here, I don't even care about your libertarian views or whatever the correct term is: it's all about point 1.
Saying you can't interpret a text is saying you may not give it meaning. You state the point as if interpretation is a voluntary thing, a way of twisting the 'true meaning' of a text, kind of like religious extremist might do.
However, without interpretation words will not make any sense.
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
The Minister who urged to ban content on internet surely don't know how internet works. He must take his primary classes again. And he can avail a discount on that too as he is Education minister. lolz
The idea of defining anything as being the norm for humans is actually offensive to me.
Invita Invidia
I think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy addresses/resolves these issues.
Slashdot = Sarcasm
I would rather make a clear "it depends". As with many things there is no clear Yes / No. The big problem how much is the right thing amount the government should influence whatever.
1. Yes, the Constitution should be interpreted. You need to adapt the interpretation to the technological realities and resulting implications. You think GPS tracking is unconstitutional? Go look it up, there is no provision on this. Should the Constitution be perverted beyond the original intent, definitely No.
2. I am all for a balanced budget and any government should strive for that. But there are unforeseen consequences, such as natural disasters. Should the people be left alone during this state of emergency, because there is no budget? No, they should not.
3. & 7. Is government allowed to interfere with the free market? Generally no, but the government is there to ensure that everybody plays by the same rules and that there remains a free market. Yes this includes laws that prevent monopolies form and price rigging.
4. I don't know about you, but will rather live in a country that helps me cases of dire need that starting and freezing in the cold, just because I lost a job. Sure there is abuse and that need handled.
5. What are the alternatives to an income tax? Ok, you get a road tax for driving on the government built road, you get a police, fire department and paramedic tax... It's not perfect but the approach to tax income has at least the potential to be "fair"; people with high income pay more... but the current situation is a broken one, yes...
6. If due process is done, then it is ok. If there is reasonable grounds to suspect some illegal activity and a judge approves all and every measure on an individual basis it is better for the entire society. The danger comes from abuse of power and that must be prevented.
So, no you can't answer yes to every question. Because if you do you actually don't have a government left and that is not called democracy, that's called anarchism.
Charismatic idiots still don't have a human right not to be offended. No one does anywhere, if they do, it's a totally retarded dictatorship like some Islamic country or of course the Chinese. I don't think the Chinese are very thin skinned about offensive material, just sex stuff. I guess that leaves India as the butt of the world joke.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
Clearly, if we are having trouble "interpreting" the consitution using modern-day language, the answer is to look at the spirit and intentions of the founders. By any measure, the spirit and intentions were for strictly limited government (especially the centralized "federal" government), individual liberty, and in general, invididual sovereignty taking precedence over government operations by default.
Regardless of how you "interpret" the constitution, what we have today is miles -- no, light years -- away from what the founders intended. For christ's sake, we are talking about the most expensive, most powerful government AND world empire (with military bases in some 150 countries) that has ever existed. The founders' vision has been completely and utterly torn out, kicked out, and exiled from what we now know as government.
1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution?
What else do we do with it? Throw it in the trash bin? If you can't interpret it, then you can't read it and follow it. You know, words have different meanings. And terms aren't black and white.
The minority who weren't looking for "offensive" material and saw it anyway were duped by crapflooders, goatse trolls and the like.
Which is precisely the point of the attempted censorship. You admit yourself, from your lofty view of total freedom to say what you like, that people will be exposed to offensive material. You practice self-censorship (i.e. burying your head in the sand) in the face of something you don't like. I don't think that government censorship is an appropriate response, but "la-la-la I can't hear you" doesn't always work.
"Please describe the scientific nature of the 'whammy'" - Agent Scully
Maybe it would be easier to block all traffic to India and this Minister could allow sites and communications with sites he feels are not "offensive". Oh, and do it in real time.
"You're on my side and the dark side, like Lando Calrissian?" --Gimpy, Undergrads
Which is precisely the point of the attempted censorship.
It will work about as well as drug prohibition. It's a law that is easily evaded and won't be widely respected. Yes you can try to order men around this way and micromanage their every action but it never really works. On an international Internet it's just too easy to get around it.
You admit yourself, from your lofty view of total freedom to say what you like, that people will be exposed to offensive material.
Yes, they will. Let's see. The most comprehensive, amazing, massive collection of information that has ever appeared before in all of human history plus the ability to instantly communicate with nearly anyone in the world and exchange information as equals... that's on the plus side. The occasional troll or asshat, that's on the minus side. Yeah, I think I like the trade-off. It's not broken and doesn't need fixing. Dealing with the minus side is called by various names -- I tend to favor "grow a pair".
You practice self-censorship (i.e. burying your head in the sand) in the face of something you don't like.
This word, it does not seem to mean what you think it means. Self-censorship means I want to say something but I fear the consequences of saying it. Not watching shows that don't interest me isn't self-censorship. Not listening to people I think are crazy isn't self-censorship. It's not burying your head in the sand, either.
Right now someone somewhere is listening to a song you absolutely couldn't stand. It would drive you up the wall with its annoying refrain and irritating sound. You didn't look for this song and purchase it online, not because you fear it but because you don't generally buy things you know you won't like. Are you hiding from it? Are you cowering in the shadows? Are you burying your head in the sand? Or are you merely acting in a rational manner by not participating (voting with your feet/wallet) in things you dislike?
I question the intellectual honesty of someone who can't disagree with something without falsely mischaracterizing it, as you have done.
I don't think that government censorship is an appropriate response, but "la-la-la I can't hear you" doesn't always work.
Where that doesn't work, sucking it up and moving on does. That's a tiny, tiny price to pay to live in the Information Age. Sometimes you just don't know how good you have it.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
1. Is it a correct thing to allow interpretation of Constitution? 2. Is it a correct thing to allow the government live on debt? 3. Is it a correct thing to allow the government control money supply and cost? 4. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to insure people in any way (from deposit insurance to health and retirement)? 5. Is it a correct thing to give the government power to tax people's incomes? 6. Is it a correct thing to give government power to provide security against criminal activity by diminishing individual liberties? 7. Is it a correct thing to allow government regulate business? 8. If these same questions were posed differently, would you have recognized them in their true form? --- The correct long term answer to items 1-7 is always a 'no', it cannot be a 'yes' under any circumstances, but that's the long term thinking.
Oh ffs. To believe that the "correct" answer to those questions is always no demonstrates a breathtaking ignorance of history. What's worse, you consider yourself a "sophisticated" voter!
Those questions have been answered no repeatedly, by similarly-minded people, and have repeatedly ended in widespread, disastrous, often violent failures.
Are you unaware of the violence and damage wrought by strict literalists of various types? It continues to this day. Why would you think constitutional literalists would differ from biblical or koranical literalists? How many more examples of this guy do you need -- http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/
Have you learned nothing at all of the depths of depravity to which industrial will stoop if unregulated? Refer to the Sago Mine disaster for a recent example, if you can't bother with the countless examples from centuries past.
Do you recommend preserving the individual liberties of violent felons --murderers, rapists, extortionist thugs, etc-- at the expense of security?
Replace "government" with "people" and run through those questions again.
Word. This is one reason why I no longer believe in democracy. Possession of tyrannical power does not become better just because we take turns, or only award turns to those who win a stupid popularity contest. It's not that we need somebody to possess these tyrannical powers and need a safe and rational way to hand it out -- it's that we need nobody to possess these powers!
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
nobody should have a Constitutionally-protected right to be a jackass.
- yet the nazis are protected in their speech with the Constitution.
Everybody has the right to be protected from the government under the Constitution regardless of their speech.
You don't have Constitutional protection against your peers, so if you act like a jackass you may and sometimes will end up being punched in the face. That's the risk you take, and the criminal court may find that this was an assault and the person who punched you is punished for it.
Yes, more or less. First, a large portion of the government's debt is long-term obligations
- wrong. Any debt that government gets into is a tax future tax, because government has no money, it must raise taxes to pay back the debts.
So if the government must do something and it has no money, it must raise taxes immediately to cover that expense, and if the taxes cannot be raised for political reason (people don't accept it), then the government must not do it.
Of-course you can talk about war-bonds, those were all domestically bought, but those are equivalent to taxes, so government shouldn't be allowed to get into debt, it must be required to raise taxes.
Yes, when necessary. The government acts (financially) as a large single entity, so if anyone's going to control the money supply, it's going to be the government. Is that control really necessary, though?
- wrong. It's never 'necessary', nor is it authorized.
Government must never issue bills of credit, it's illegal for government to do so. Real money is expression of production, any money that is printed without production behind them is counterfeit money and counterfeiters must be hung by the neck till dead.
According to modern monetary theory, the answer is again "yes"
- that's the 'modern theory' that gives the green light and justification for governments to steal and counterfeit, this is all nonsense. There is no economics but Austrian economics that is sound and will not destroy the economy in the long run.
Yes, when it's a matter that will "insure domestic Tranquility" and "promote the general Welfare".
- wrong. Tranquility and general welfare have nothing to do with personal welfare and money redistribution (stealing from Peter to give to Paul). Government must not be allowed into insurance, all it does is it creates moral hazards and if it was running a real insurance program, it would the most worthless insurance program. Governments of-course never run insurance programs, only transfer and pyramid schemes.
Of-course SS and health care, just like education loans and and housing loans, etc., it's all pyramid schemes, it's all illegal and immoral. I wrote plenty on it in my journal (some examples).
Yes. The government runs on money, of course. Income tax is simple
- wrong. US Constitution authorizes taxes, but it took a while to start collecting income taxes instead of import/sales taxes (excise), as they had to create a clever scheme to call excise taxes 'income'. In any case it's definitely not a simple tax, it's the most convoluted tax from every perspective.
You don't need to hire an accountant and lawyers to pay your sales taxes for example, but you do in many cases when you pay income taxes. Income taxes violate your privacy, your liberties and rights against testifying against yourself and illegal searches and seizures and in any case those are the worst taxes to collect from point of view of economy, as they deprive economy from savings and investment, which is the only thing that grows the economy.
There is no such long term concept as 'consumption economy', there
You can't handle the truth.
I thought she dropped out ages ago?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Actually, I'm not sure it isn't actually implicit in the very wording of the constitution, as it being law by it's very nature, as law has no effect unless implemented, it's bound to be challenged in court, therefore requiring an legal interpretation, IMHO..
The Constitution is always "interpreted" when the politicians/judges are trying to do something that is against the idea, on which the country was founded.
They don't 'interpret' the document when they are not trying to subvert and destroy it.
You can't handle the truth.