"That opens the door to the SCOTUS's other favorite "get out of hard decisions free" card: they can declare the point moot since their decision won't un-bankrupt the corporations."
No, it doesn't, because they don't have any way around the "chilling speech" issue.
"And who is going to correct SCOTUS if they choose to pretend that there is?"
Everybody.
Look... SCOTUS is a branch of the Federal government, just like the other two. It is not immune from image problems (especially in recent years, when it has demonstrably failed to do its job again and again and again).
They just could not get away with that ruling, because everybody knows that it would be a lie.
And just in case you hadn't read your Constitution lately: SCOTUS judges are not "appointed for life." They are appointed during "good behavior". If they exhibit something that is not "good behavior" (as such a ruling would be), they CAN be removed from office.
"To get rejected for lack of standing, or some other legalistic mumbo jumbo."
No. There is no "lack of standing" excuse anymore. We now have proof beyond doubt -- many times over -- that the NSA's activities have chilled speech and caused corporations to go out of business.
"The problem with knee-jerk assessments, which most people are operating under (Fourth Amendment, unreasonable search and seizure) is that there are all sorts of vague bits of the constitution and other amendments which leave wiggle room for things which fall under "National Security" and have done for a long time.
There's this comical belief that Congress should have the ability to approve of War Powers, which the constitution clearly states are those powers reserved to the President. Which is a way of saying, what you think it should be and how it is is not always clear cut. "
Wow. You have a pretty bizarre view of the Constitution. I suggest you sit down and actually read it sometime. Soon.
"Dude, this is Bruce Schneier we're talking about. If his resume ever gets out of date, he just generates a block of random bits, decrypts it using the infinite one time pad he memorized in grade school, and voila: an up to date resume."
But this brings up: what did they expect from him?
If discussing the NSA and GCHQ was something they didn't want, why the hell did they hire Bruce Schneier? OP strongly suggests that BT doesn't know what the hell it's doing anyway.
"Maybe he's too hamstrung or maybe he likes what the NSA is doing. Obama has in no way been clear enough for us to determine which one of those is true."
The President isn't "hamstrung" at all. He's the Chief Executive, and the NSA is an Executive organization. The President can order an investigation at any time. He can send them all home for a paid (or even unpaid) vacation. Congress may write the laws, but the President is, in effect, the CEO. As long as he's not breaking Congress' (or any other) law, he can tell them to do what he pleases.
There are LOTS of things the President can do. The simple fact that he has not tells us that he does not want to.
Of course it's a "republic". That's what I wrote earlier. But as I also wrote earlier, you seem to be ignorant of the difference between a republican government and a national government. And they are, indeed, very different.
??? according to whom? Who, for example, has the authority to tell the United States that it can't sign a treaty?
But I'm being facetious. You're still missing the point. As I explained earlier, there is a DIFFERENCE between being "externally sovereign" (i.e., FROM other countries) and being "internally sovereign" (i.e., what entity WITHIN a government is considered sovereign).
As for your first point: the 50 sovereign Statesdelegated the power to sign treaties to the Federal government, as one of the enumerated powers the States delegated to the Federal government. This is historical truth. Go read your history of the U.S. government (as I suggested before).
"The civil war pretty well put to rest the idea that the idea that the states are truly sovereign."
This is another grade-school level myth. I was taught this nonsense in public schools, too. It was only when I began studying history outside government-run classrooms that I learned otherwise. And it very clearly IS otherwise.
"I don't see how a state in such a situation could possibly be considered remotely sovereign. "
That's because (A) you don't seem to understand what sovereignty means, in part because (B) you are conflating two different kinds of "sovereignty".
"Also, a republic is merely a type of government. The legal status of the states would not really be different if the U.S. were a direct democracy, a monarchy, or an empire. We're a union of 50 states, which happens to be governed as a presidential republic. "
This is the most laughable assertion of all. As James Madison wrote (paraphrase, in a discussion of the power of the Federal government, and particularly the Supreme Court): "When power is delegated to a third party, that third party does not have greater authority than the entity which delegated the power."
This a direct quote: "On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it."
I was referring to the capitalist, free-market system that has generally been referred to as "capitalism" by those who are studying same. I am certainly willing to admit that if you want to be nitpickingly technical, it is possible to have "capitalist" systems that follow other models.
But IF that's what you were talking about, then you were talking about something completely different from what I was talking about, so an argument about it is hilariously pointless.
And I stick by my assertion that although Marx and Engels may have coined the word, they do not get to "define" capitalism as a system, because the system already existed. It is clear what system they were referring to in their writings, and they could not have "defined" it because that system existed before they did.
It's not worth arguing over. As I say, I admit that I was nitpicking.
I am perfectly happy to concede that a plain, uncoated incandescent light bulb puts out a very good approximation of a continuous (though far from uniform) spectrum.
"First of all, capitalism was not "codified" by Adam Smith - the word didn't even exist in his time. "
Do you even read the threads you are replying to? I wrote twice so far that Smith did not actually use that word.
"The word "capitalism" itself was introduced into modern mainstream by Marx & Engels, so they get to write the definition."
Not really. While they coined the word, they were describing a system that already existed and had already been described and discussed at length by others. So while they can certainly use that word to name the system they are describing, but they do not get to define that system. Those are two different things.
As I wrote before: it is generally accepted that Smith was the first to describe the capitalist market system in detail, even though -- I will write it here for the third time -- he did not use that actual word.
"This is the key difference that puts capitalism apart: in capitalism, anyone can acquire capital and transfer it to anyone else..."
And I repeat: you are using it here to differentiate it from other systems. I already said that. All that does is describe the parts that are not common to other systems. It does not fully describe the system.
"And yes, it is the key differences from other things that define what something is."
No, it isn't. That is a very fundamental error. Saying that it's "a bird which is not blue" does not define a robin. That is *A* fundamental difference, and sufficient to distinguish it from all the blue birds, but does not tell you much else about some very definite, defining, and required characteristics of a robin.
"Adam Smith, in particular, described markets in general. He was certainly quite fond of free markets, and devoted a lot of his writings to their functioning and to promoting them as the way to go forward, but he did not in any way define the essence of capitalism."
He did, unless you are claiming that defining the word defines the system. You are arguing about something that I was not. I repeat one more time: while Smith did not USE the word "capitalism", he did describe in detail the fundamental workings of that economic system we now call capitalism. On the other hand, while Marx and Engels may have defined the word, they got a lot of things about the actual system just plain wrong.
MIT society of physics students: "one can observe a continuous spectrum by looking at an incandescent light bulb."
I already stated that I was nitpicking. Now you are nitpicking at my nitpicking.
To a young student with a diffraction grating, yes the emission from an incandescent bulb will look continuous, especially when compared to fluorescent or LED.
But it is not. It approximates a continuous spectrum. But when you look at the details you will see spikes and dropouts, particularly if it is a (typical) coated bulb, corresponding to the absorptivity and emissivity of the materials and gases used in its construction.
" Monopolies and oligopolies are just as much part of capitalism as free markets."
NO, they aren't, and as I stated before, that was recognized even back when capitalism, as a system, was first being studied!
Seriously, dude, pick up Smith and read it. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. He did not use the word capitalism, but economists recognize that he is the man who first (and thoroughly) described it as an economic system. And even HE very clearly stated that antitrust regulation would be necessary, even with ideal free markets, because monopoly and oligopoly are NOT "part" of capitalist free markets, but are the enemy of capitalist free markets.
Monopoly and oligopoly are against the rules of capitalism. They aren't "part" of capitalism.
"Capitalism is about private ownership of capital - hence the name. Monopolies and oligopolies are just as much part of capitalism as free markets. That's precisely why unregulated capitalism is a very bad system."
Capitalism -- as described by the man who codified it, Adam Smith -- is a free market system. It is true that it involves private investment of capital. But trying to define capitalism as "private investment of capital" is like defining Christmas as "an exchange of gifts". It isn't exactly wrong, but you're leaving out so much of the important information and real meaning that it might as well be.
Your statement that capitalism is the private investment of capital distinguishes it from other economic systems that don't allow that. But that doesn't "define" it. Any more than saying "that bird isn't blue" defines a robin.
"For people who take the mercury danger seriously, CFCs are arguable worse than incandescent, and to-date, LEDs yield very little cost saving."
I don't know when this study was done, but it is seriously obsolete already.
I was in the store yesterday and saw name-brand, 75W-replacement LED bulbs (something like 12 actual watts consumption, IIRC), 1300 lumens, for $16.95.
That would bring the above calculation (12W usage) to 360kWh, or $36.00 to run the bulb.
Cost of bulb: $17.00. So total cost is actually $53. And that's for 75W-equivalent output, not 60 as in your figures. (Actually more, as a typical 75W bulb is about 1100 lumens, while these were 1300.)
"A point source of continuous spectrum light with a low color temperature. I do not care about the efficiency - after all, my computers use ~1kW and my Bitcoin miners use ~600W, I really do not care about the 40W or 60W that goes to a light bulb."
Pardon me for nitpicking a bit, but incandescents are not "continuous spectrum". Generally speaking, they are more continuous than fluorescents and LEDs, but continuous they are not.
Correct coatings and phosphors for globes though, when done properly, pretty much correct for the spiky output of fluorescents and LEDs. The technology is improving rapidly.
That is still not to say that I agree with the legislation, though. I agree that encouraging the use of modern efficient replacements for the old bulbs is good, it is bad legislation on principle, if for no other reason. It is FAR beyond any power our ancestors ever imagined giving the Federal government... and in fact they really don't have the legal authority to ban bulbs, regardless of what laws they pass.
"Capitalistic "freedom of choice" is weighted by the size of your wallet."
I have grown so tired of this utter bullshit.
"Crony capitalism" is not capitalism. It isn't even close. That's the reason it has a name. "Monopoly" and "oligopoly" are not capitalism. Even Adam Smith, who was basically the originator of the concept of capitalism as a system, recognized that antitrust laws to keep monopolies and oligopolies from forming were a necessary part of the strategy.
Capitalism is about free market forces. Voluntary exchange. With the exception of antitrust, EVERY government interference in the market, and ALL corporate lobbying that ends up restricting your choices, is an ENEMY of capitalism.
Don't blame the system for the actions of enemies of the system. That is like blaming the food for somebody burning your crops.
"If you search the Constitution, you don't find the word "sovereign" in it, and yet the US government has sovereign immunity when not waived as recognized by the courts and taught by the law schools."
Law schools are not even remotely recognized authorities on the Constitution. Try historians instead.
Law schools teach lawyers what to say to a judge. They don't teach much actual Constitutional history, and what they do teach, they don't do well.
And finally: you should take the fact that the Constitution does not mention "sovereignty" as a pretty strong clue.
"I'm curious, how do you think that it applies to the "United States," as noted above, in a way that is effective and different from the Federal government?"
I already explained it, further up. If you need further explanation I strongly suggest a history book.
The United States is NOT a "nation". It is a REPUBLIC of 50 sovereign States. There IS a difference, and Slashdot is probably not a very good place to try to explain it. Look it up.
wouldn't call an attempt to extinguish a fire "playing the firefighter card"
You might not call it that, but that's what it is.
You honestly don't think Russia liked the idea of one-upping Obama on a "human rights" issue? I think you are mistaken. It represented real political brownie points with the rest of the world.
Putin was so ecstatic that he called Snowden an unwanted christmas gift. He was so ecstatic about Snowden being stuck in Russian airport that he said "the sooner he moves out of Russia, the better". Putin so wanted to show up Obama (whatever that means) that he granted Snowden asylum (Snowden had nowhere to go at this time after the incident with Bolivian president and no passport) on a condition that Snowden would stop doing anything that would damage "our American partners".
Holy crap, dude. Don't you know obvious politics when you see it?
"Playing the X card..." is a figure of speech, and it applies here. Apparently you are under the impression that it implies falsehood. It doesn't.
It has often been over-used in the context of race: "He played the race card." But by itself, that doesn't imply he did it falsely. He may have, he may not have.
"I believe what's meant by "sovereign" here is "sovereign immunity", by which the US government (including the NSA as a Federal entity) is immune from lawsuits unless it consents to be sued."
That does sound vaguely familiar. But if so, it is misnamed, because the Federal government has no "sovereignty", per se.
The States and The People are sovereign in the United States. Not the Federal government.
Slashdot Mirror
"That opens the door to the SCOTUS's other favorite "get out of hard decisions free" card: they can declare the point moot since their decision won't un-bankrupt the corporations."
No, it doesn't, because they don't have any way around the "chilling speech" issue.
"And who is going to correct SCOTUS if they choose to pretend that there is?"
Everybody.
Look... SCOTUS is a branch of the Federal government, just like the other two. It is not immune from image problems (especially in recent years, when it has demonstrably failed to do its job again and again and again).
They just could not get away with that ruling, because everybody knows that it would be a lie.
And just in case you hadn't read your Constitution lately: SCOTUS judges are not "appointed for life." They are appointed during "good behavior". If they exhibit something that is not "good behavior" (as such a ruling would be), they CAN be removed from office.
"To get rejected for lack of standing, or some other legalistic mumbo jumbo."
No. There is no "lack of standing" excuse anymore. We now have proof beyond doubt -- many times over -- that the NSA's activities have chilled speech and caused corporations to go out of business.
"The problem with knee-jerk assessments, which most people are operating under (Fourth Amendment, unreasonable search and seizure) is that there are all sorts of vague bits of the constitution and other amendments which leave wiggle room for things which fall under "National Security" and have done for a long time.
There's this comical belief that Congress should have the ability to approve of War Powers, which the constitution clearly states are those powers reserved to the President. Which is a way of saying, what you think it should be and how it is is not always clear cut. "
Wow. You have a pretty bizarre view of the Constitution. I suggest you sit down and actually read it sometime. Soon.
"Dude, this is Bruce Schneier we're talking about. If his resume ever gets out of date, he just generates a block of random bits, decrypts it using the infinite one time pad he memorized in grade school, and voila: an up to date resume."
But this brings up: what did they expect from him?
If discussing the NSA and GCHQ was something they didn't want, why the hell did they hire Bruce Schneier? OP strongly suggests that BT doesn't know what the hell it's doing anyway.
"Maybe he's too hamstrung or maybe he likes what the NSA is doing. Obama has in no way been clear enough for us to determine which one of those is true."
The President isn't "hamstrung" at all. He's the Chief Executive, and the NSA is an Executive organization. The President can order an investigation at any time. He can send them all home for a paid (or even unpaid) vacation. Congress may write the laws, but the President is, in effect, the CEO. As long as he's not breaking Congress' (or any other) law, he can tell them to do what he pleases.
There are LOTS of things the President can do. The simple fact that he has not tells us that he does not want to.
I should clarify my last statements.
Of course it's a "republic". That's what I wrote earlier. But as I also wrote earlier, you seem to be ignorant of the difference between a republican government and a national government. And they are, indeed, very different.
"Only sovereign states can ratify treaties"
??? according to whom? Who, for example, has the authority to tell the United States that it can't sign a treaty?
But I'm being facetious. You're still missing the point. As I explained earlier, there is a DIFFERENCE between being "externally sovereign" (i.e., FROM other countries) and being "internally sovereign" (i.e., what entity WITHIN a government is considered sovereign).
As for your first point: the 50 sovereign States delegated the power to sign treaties to the Federal government, as one of the enumerated powers the States delegated to the Federal government. This is historical truth. Go read your history of the U.S. government (as I suggested before).
"The civil war pretty well put to rest the idea that the idea that the states are truly sovereign."
This is another grade-school level myth. I was taught this nonsense in public schools, too. It was only when I began studying history outside government-run classrooms that I learned otherwise. And it very clearly IS otherwise.
"I don't see how a state in such a situation could possibly be considered remotely sovereign. "
That's because (A) you don't seem to understand what sovereignty means, in part because (B) you are conflating two different kinds of "sovereignty".
"Also, a republic is merely a type of government. The legal status of the states would not really be different if the U.S. were a direct democracy, a monarchy, or an empire. We're a union of 50 states, which happens to be governed as a presidential republic. "
This is the most laughable assertion of all. As James Madison wrote (paraphrase, in a discussion of the power of the Federal government, and particularly the Supreme Court): "When power is delegated to a third party, that third party does not have greater authority than the entity which delegated the power."
This a direct quote: "On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it."
This is perfectly sound logic.
I will also state this:
I was referring to the capitalist, free-market system that has generally been referred to as "capitalism" by those who are studying same. I am certainly willing to admit that if you want to be nitpickingly technical, it is possible to have "capitalist" systems that follow other models.
But IF that's what you were talking about, then you were talking about something completely different from what I was talking about, so an argument about it is hilariously pointless.
And I stick by my assertion that although Marx and Engels may have coined the word, they do not get to "define" capitalism as a system, because the system already existed. It is clear what system they were referring to in their writings, and they could not have "defined" it because that system existed before they did.
It's not worth arguing over. As I say, I admit that I was nitpicking.
I am perfectly happy to concede that a plain, uncoated incandescent light bulb puts out a very good approximation of a continuous (though far from uniform) spectrum.
"First of all, capitalism was not "codified" by Adam Smith - the word didn't even exist in his time. "
Do you even read the threads you are replying to? I wrote twice so far that Smith did not actually use that word.
"The word "capitalism" itself was introduced into modern mainstream by Marx & Engels, so they get to write the definition."
Not really. While they coined the word, they were describing a system that already existed and had already been described and discussed at length by others. So while they can certainly use that word to name the system they are describing, but they do not get to define that system. Those are two different things. As I wrote before: it is generally accepted that Smith was the first to describe the capitalist market system in detail, even though -- I will write it here for the third time -- he did not use that actual word.
"This is the key difference that puts capitalism apart: in capitalism, anyone can acquire capital and transfer it to anyone else..."
And I repeat: you are using it here to differentiate it from other systems. I already said that. All that does is describe the parts that are not common to other systems. It does not fully describe the system.
"And yes, it is the key differences from other things that define what something is."
No, it isn't. That is a very fundamental error. Saying that it's "a bird which is not blue" does not define a robin. That is *A* fundamental difference, and sufficient to distinguish it from all the blue birds, but does not tell you much else about some very definite, defining, and required characteristics of a robin.
"Adam Smith, in particular, described markets in general. He was certainly quite fond of free markets, and devoted a lot of his writings to their functioning and to promoting them as the way to go forward, but he did not in any way define the essence of capitalism."
He did, unless you are claiming that defining the word defines the system. You are arguing about something that I was not. I repeat one more time: while Smith did not USE the word "capitalism", he did describe in detail the fundamental workings of that economic system we now call capitalism. On the other hand, while Marx and Engels may have defined the word, they got a lot of things about the actual system just plain wrong.
MIT society of physics students: "one can observe a continuous spectrum by looking at an incandescent light bulb."
I already stated that I was nitpicking. Now you are nitpicking at my nitpicking.
To a young student with a diffraction grating, yes the emission from an incandescent bulb will look continuous, especially when compared to fluorescent or LED.
But it is not. It approximates a continuous spectrum. But when you look at the details you will see spikes and dropouts, particularly if it is a (typical) coated bulb, corresponding to the absorptivity and emissivity of the materials and gases used in its construction.
" Monopolies and oligopolies are just as much part of capitalism as free markets."
NO, they aren't, and as I stated before, that was recognized even back when capitalism, as a system, was first being studied!
Seriously, dude, pick up Smith and read it. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. He did not use the word capitalism, but economists recognize that he is the man who first (and thoroughly) described it as an economic system. And even HE very clearly stated that antitrust regulation would be necessary, even with ideal free markets, because monopoly and oligopoly are NOT "part" of capitalist free markets, but are the enemy of capitalist free markets.
Monopoly and oligopoly are against the rules of capitalism. They aren't "part" of capitalism.
"Capitalism is about private ownership of capital - hence the name. Monopolies and oligopolies are just as much part of capitalism as free markets. That's precisely why unregulated capitalism is a very bad system."
Capitalism -- as described by the man who codified it, Adam Smith -- is a free market system. It is true that it involves private investment of capital. But trying to define capitalism as "private investment of capital" is like defining Christmas as "an exchange of gifts". It isn't exactly wrong, but you're leaving out so much of the important information and real meaning that it might as well be.
Your statement that capitalism is the private investment of capital distinguishes it from other economic systems that don't allow that. But that doesn't "define" it. Any more than saying "that bird isn't blue" defines a robin.
"For people who take the mercury danger seriously, CFCs are arguable worse than incandescent, and to-date, LEDs yield very little cost saving."
I don't know when this study was done, but it is seriously obsolete already.
I was in the store yesterday and saw name-brand, 75W-replacement LED bulbs (something like 12 actual watts consumption, IIRC), 1300 lumens, for $16.95.
That would bring the above calculation (12W usage) to 360kWh, or $36.00 to run the bulb.
Cost of bulb: $17.00. So total cost is actually $53. And that's for 75W-equivalent output, not 60 as in your figures. (Actually more, as a typical 75W bulb is about 1100 lumens, while these were 1300.)
"A point source of continuous spectrum light with a low color temperature. I do not care about the efficiency - after all, my computers use ~1kW and my Bitcoin miners use ~600W, I really do not care about the 40W or 60W that goes to a light bulb."
Pardon me for nitpicking a bit, but incandescents are not "continuous spectrum". Generally speaking, they are more continuous than fluorescents and LEDs, but continuous they are not.
Correct coatings and phosphors for globes though, when done properly, pretty much correct for the spiky output of fluorescents and LEDs. The technology is improving rapidly.
That is still not to say that I agree with the legislation, though. I agree that encouraging the use of modern efficient replacements for the old bulbs is good, it is bad legislation on principle, if for no other reason. It is FAR beyond any power our ancestors ever imagined giving the Federal government... and in fact they really don't have the legal authority to ban bulbs, regardless of what laws they pass.
"Capitalistic "freedom of choice" is weighted by the size of your wallet."
I have grown so tired of this utter bullshit.
"Crony capitalism" is not capitalism. It isn't even close. That's the reason it has a name. "Monopoly" and "oligopoly" are not capitalism. Even Adam Smith, who was basically the originator of the concept of capitalism as a system, recognized that antitrust laws to keep monopolies and oligopolies from forming were a necessary part of the strategy.
Capitalism is about free market forces. Voluntary exchange. With the exception of antitrust, EVERY government interference in the market, and ALL corporate lobbying that ends up restricting your choices, is an ENEMY of capitalism.
Don't blame the system for the actions of enemies of the system. That is like blaming the food for somebody burning your crops.
"If you search the Constitution, you don't find the word "sovereign" in it, and yet the US government has sovereign immunity when not waived as recognized by the courts and taught by the law schools."
Law schools are not even remotely recognized authorities on the Constitution. Try historians instead.
Law schools teach lawyers what to say to a judge. They don't teach much actual Constitutional history, and what they do teach, they don't do well.
And finally: you should take the fact that the Constitution does not mention "sovereignty" as a pretty strong clue.
"I'm curious, how do you think that it applies to the "United States," as noted above, in a way that is effective and different from the Federal government?"
I already explained it, further up. If you need further explanation I strongly suggest a history book.
The United States is NOT a "nation". It is a REPUBLIC of 50 sovereign States. There IS a difference, and Slashdot is probably not a very good place to try to explain it. Look it up.
wouldn't call an attempt to extinguish a fire "playing the firefighter card"
You might not call it that, but that's what it is.
You honestly don't think Russia liked the idea of one-upping Obama on a "human rights" issue? I think you are mistaken. It represented real political brownie points with the rest of the world.
Putin was so ecstatic that he called Snowden an unwanted christmas gift. He was so ecstatic about Snowden being stuck in Russian airport that he said "the sooner he moves out of Russia, the better". Putin so wanted to show up Obama (whatever that means) that he granted Snowden asylum (Snowden had nowhere to go at this time after the incident with Bolivian president and no passport) on a condition that Snowden would stop doing anything that would damage "our American partners".
Holy crap, dude. Don't you know obvious politics when you see it?
Sorry, but that's not an authoritative source. The Constitution is.
But probably more relevant here: those are two completely different uses of the word.
"Sovereignty" FROM other countries does not grant the government sovereignty from its own people.
"The justified political asylum is not a card..."
"Playing the X card..." is a figure of speech, and it applies here. Apparently you are under the impression that it implies falsehood. It doesn't.
It has often been over-used in the context of race: "He played the race card." But by itself, that doesn't imply he did it falsely. He may have, he may not have.
Those are STATES. Not the Federal government. That's what I was saying.
"I believe what's meant by "sovereign" here is "sovereign immunity", by which the US government (including the NSA as a Federal entity) is immune from lawsuits unless it consents to be sued."
That does sound vaguely familiar. But if so, it is misnamed, because the Federal government has no "sovereignty", per se.
The States and The People are sovereign in the United States. Not the Federal government.