That is not a property of capitalism. As someone else has pointed out that is a property of a political system wherein certain groups of people ask the political class to exercise more power every time there is a problem that results from the political class abusing its power.
I was very impressed by the President acting in violation of the Constitution (even according to him from a few years back). However, that was not a positive impression.
This can track you even while you are driving on private property, something a policeman following you can only do with the permission of the landowner. Additionally, tracking someone's movement by someone physically following them consumes a significant amount of manpower. This means that anyone who chooses to do so in an official capacity will be held accountable by someone before very long. Whereas someone could use a GPS device without necessarily attracting even the notice of their supervisor.
You missed the fact that the SUV they were tracking was purchased from the fugitive cousin with cash, after the cousin became a fugitive. Which of course means that they should have been able to get a warrant (and may have indeed done so).
Progressives are about letting "experts" make decisions for everyone. This is about creating a group of "experts" to decide if a law should go into force.
The point isn't for them to understand the existing laws, it is to force them to get rid of some so that they have time to pass new laws. Right now, if they had to read all existing laws before they could pass new ones, they would run out of time before the next election rolled around.
I agree with the idea that all laws should expire after a certain amount of time and the replacement cannot be a bill merely extending an existing law. When a law expires, Congress should have to pass a new law with all of the provisions spelled out. I, also, believe that when they amend an existing law, the bill to amend the existing law should contain the entirety of what the law will be after the amendment goes into force, not just the amendment they are passing.
That's because you don't understand how important those offices are. Probably less so today than years ago, but still important. Suppose you have a dispute with your neighbor over where your property ends and his begins, wouldn't you much rather the final arbiter of interpreting the deeds be someone elected by popular vote than someone who owes their position to being related to the County Supervisors (one of whom happens to be your neighbor)?
The problem is that too many people think that the important office is President and Congressman. Our system was set up that the important offices are supposed to be County Supervisor, State Legislator and Governor.
ban all contributions of cash to a politician corporate or individual.
So, you want only the wealthy to hold political office? Because under your system they would be the only ones who could afford to run a campaign.
Corporations are groups of people. All of the people who are part of the group that is a corporation do not give up their rights just because they banded together as a group. If you are going take the actions you suggest against corporations, it will need to apply to all organizations. That would include Unions, Environmental organizations (such as Sierra Club), etc. If it does not, corporations will just form such groups and give money that way. If you write the laws to prevent corporations from doing that (assuming that you can), you will give organizations such as Unions, the Sierra Club, the NRA power such that corporations will have to bow to their wishes against the interests of the corporations customers and stockholders.
Your "solution" would result in politicians having even more power over the economy, meaning in order to be a success you would have to be politically connected.
And this is why it is a bad idea to make it easier for people to vote. We already have too many people who vote, but who don't care enough to pay attention for more than a month or two before the election (and then only to the major races--President, governor, mayor).
I read your post and agree with the sentiments expressed. I then read your linked post. I think a much simpler ammendment to address the problem is one that has been suggested from time to time over the last several years. Every bill must contain an addendum that states where in the Constitution Congress is given the authority to enact such a law. Additionally, the courts would only have to rule on whether or not that provision of the Constitution actually did so. There would be no need to consider whether or not another provision of the Constitution might extend Congress the power to pass such a law. The only reason to examine other parts of the Constitution would be for provisions that forbid such a law.
Another possible route would be that before a newly elected Congress can pass any legislation, all currently in force laws must be read aloud to the chamber while a quorum of members are present.
You signed that incorrectly. This is clearly a progressive idea, so the Koch brothers are not interested. However, George Soros would heartily approve.
OK, first of all, corruption is already illegal. If you can demonstrate a quid pro quo, it is a violation of the law.
Now, let's examine your particulars. You want to outlaw corporate donations. What this means is that I cannot pool my money with a bunch of like minded people and form a corporation for the purpose of influencing the actions of government officials. That means you would prefer to see the fabulously wealthy have even greater influence over the decisions made by the government.
You want to outlaw professional lobbyists. That means that I cannot hire someone who knows the ins and outs of government to get my concerns heard by the government official/legislator who can most likely address those issues. That means once again that the fabulously wealthy would have even greater influence over the decisions made by the government than they do already.
The system is abused, but the mistake you are making is thinking that the powerful do not want this sort of thing. The result of campaign finance reform has been to make it harder to unseat incumbents. That means that politicians spend even more time in the seats of power associating with the rich and connected and less time (as a percentage of their life) associating with the common citizen.
It does... it requires the repeal of the 16th amendment within a certain timeframe after it's enactment, otherwise it becomes void.
A provision which would be quietly nullified shortly before it took effect. If the 16th Ammendment is not repealed at the same time as the FairTax is implemented, we will end up with both income tax and the FairTax.
In what way would the FairTax not involve just as much intrusion into my life? Under the FairTax, someone would have to track everything I buy.
Ultimately the problem with the FairTax is that it would require a constitutional ammendment to do away with income tax. Otherwise we would have this national VAT (or sales tax, depending on which flavor actually got implemented...the difference not being important for this discussion) and income tax.
Depending on how they approached it, concluding that the spotted horses were fantasy could be good science.
However, archeology has done this in a manner that suggests those who go into archeology are too quick to conclude that ancient recorders (whether in writing or in art) of history were fantasists of the first order. In the 1800s, archeologists believed that Biblical references to the Assyrians were made up and that the Assyrians never existed because there were no references to the Assyrians in the records from Egypt and other parts of the Middle East that had been recovered at that time. It turns out that when they did finally discover records of the Assyrians that the Biblical accounts were fairly accurate and that the other civilizations contemporary with them hated them so much that they attempted to eliminate all reference to the Assyrians after the fall of Assyria.
There are several other examples of where archeologists dismissed ancient records of something as fantasy because they did not have independent corroboration, only to later have to admit that the records were accurate (at least by the standards of the time the records were made).
There are actually two reasons why archeologists believed that the spotted horses were imaginary. The first is that in dogs a spotted coat is a result of the domestication process (as was demonstrated by a Russian researcher who bred foxes to produce a creature that had the same relationship to foxes that dogs have to wolves--simplification of the study). The second is that earlier studies of the DNA of horses from the time showed only black and brown coats.
The problem is that over time charismatic leaders will convince people to water down the meaning of that constitution, as demonstrated by the current state of U.S. politics. The U.S. federal government has undertaken tasks which the Framers of the Constitution clearly thought they had denied the federal government the authority to do.
Wow, that's a great idea. Chinese workers should join the Chinese unions to protest the government...wait, the Chinese unions are branches of the government. It would be like a U.S. worker joining a U.S. union to protest Democratic Party policies.
No, they're complaining that the DMCA's safe harbor provisions have a loophole that allows content providers to be free of liability, even when the same infringing content is posted over, and over, and over again.
That is not a "loophole". In order for it to be a loophole, it would have to allow the ISPs to be intentionally encouraging the posting of copyrighted material and not be held liable. The courts have found several services that were not explicitly and solely about copyright infringement liable because they encouraged the use of the service for the purpose of copyright infringement. So, there is no loophole.
The content industry is complaining because they thought they would be able to use the DMCA to shut down copyright infringement and it has not worked out that way.
That is a very good point, while they are probably right that the EAS was not needed on 9/11, it is the type of incident that the system was created for.
Yes, that has been the narrative. But the actual fact is that banks are under more regulations today than they were 30 years ago. What happens is that there is "deregulation" where they replace not very onerous, but useful regulations with regulations that are more expensive to demonstrate compliance with. The result of this is that smaller banks cannot afford to demonstrate that they are in compliance with the regulations and merge with larger banks until now we have several banks which are "too large to fail".
Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were two of the loudest voices resisting reformation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when it became obvious to those with a bit of foresight that the housing market was a bubble that was going to pop. Then when it did and brought down the whole financial sector, they were the two chosen to draft the "reforms" to "keep it from happening again."
Slashdot Mirror
That is not a property of capitalism. As someone else has pointed out that is a property of a political system wherein certain groups of people ask the political class to exercise more power every time there is a problem that results from the political class abusing its power.
I was very impressed by the President acting in violation of the Constitution (even according to him from a few years back). However, that was not a positive impression.
This can track you even while you are driving on private property, something a policeman following you can only do with the permission of the landowner. Additionally, tracking someone's movement by someone physically following them consumes a significant amount of manpower. This means that anyone who chooses to do so in an official capacity will be held accountable by someone before very long. Whereas someone could use a GPS device without necessarily attracting even the notice of their supervisor.
You missed the fact that the SUV they were tracking was purchased from the fugitive cousin with cash, after the cousin became a fugitive. Which of course means that they should have been able to get a warrant (and may have indeed done so).
Which means that the system is not functioning as intended.The important offices should be state and local offices, not federal offices.
You misunderstand, I argue against the government making my decisions for me, whether the person is an expert or an idiot.
Progressives are about letting "experts" make decisions for everyone. This is about creating a group of "experts" to decide if a law should go into force.
The point isn't for them to understand the existing laws, it is to force them to get rid of some so that they have time to pass new laws. Right now, if they had to read all existing laws before they could pass new ones, they would run out of time before the next election rolled around.
I agree with the idea that all laws should expire after a certain amount of time and the replacement cannot be a bill merely extending an existing law. When a law expires, Congress should have to pass a new law with all of the provisions spelled out. I, also, believe that when they amend an existing law, the bill to amend the existing law should contain the entirety of what the law will be after the amendment goes into force, not just the amendment they are passing.
That's because you don't understand how important those offices are. Probably less so today than years ago, but still important. Suppose you have a dispute with your neighbor over where your property ends and his begins, wouldn't you much rather the final arbiter of interpreting the deeds be someone elected by popular vote than someone who owes their position to being related to the County Supervisors (one of whom happens to be your neighbor)?
The problem is that too many people think that the important office is President and Congressman. Our system was set up that the important offices are supposed to be County Supervisor, State Legislator and Governor.
ban all contributions of cash to a politician corporate or individual.
So, you want only the wealthy to hold political office? Because under your system they would be the only ones who could afford to run a campaign. Corporations are groups of people. All of the people who are part of the group that is a corporation do not give up their rights just because they banded together as a group. If you are going take the actions you suggest against corporations, it will need to apply to all organizations. That would include Unions, Environmental organizations (such as Sierra Club), etc. If it does not, corporations will just form such groups and give money that way. If you write the laws to prevent corporations from doing that (assuming that you can), you will give organizations such as Unions, the Sierra Club, the NRA power such that corporations will have to bow to their wishes against the interests of the corporations customers and stockholders.
Your "solution" would result in politicians having even more power over the economy, meaning in order to be a success you would have to be politically connected.
And this is why it is a bad idea to make it easier for people to vote. We already have too many people who vote, but who don't care enough to pay attention for more than a month or two before the election (and then only to the major races--President, governor, mayor).
I read your post and agree with the sentiments expressed. I then read your linked post. I think a much simpler ammendment to address the problem is one that has been suggested from time to time over the last several years. Every bill must contain an addendum that states where in the Constitution Congress is given the authority to enact such a law. Additionally, the courts would only have to rule on whether or not that provision of the Constitution actually did so. There would be no need to consider whether or not another provision of the Constitution might extend Congress the power to pass such a law. The only reason to examine other parts of the Constitution would be for provisions that forbid such a law.
Another possible route would be that before a newly elected Congress can pass any legislation, all currently in force laws must be read aloud to the chamber while a quorum of members are present.
You signed that incorrectly. This is clearly a progressive idea, so the Koch brothers are not interested. However, George Soros would heartily approve.
OK, first of all, corruption is already illegal. If you can demonstrate a quid pro quo, it is a violation of the law.
Now, let's examine your particulars. You want to outlaw corporate donations. What this means is that I cannot pool my money with a bunch of like minded people and form a corporation for the purpose of influencing the actions of government officials. That means you would prefer to see the fabulously wealthy have even greater influence over the decisions made by the government.
You want to outlaw professional lobbyists. That means that I cannot hire someone who knows the ins and outs of government to get my concerns heard by the government official/legislator who can most likely address those issues. That means once again that the fabulously wealthy would have even greater influence over the decisions made by the government than they do already.
The system is abused, but the mistake you are making is thinking that the powerful do not want this sort of thing. The result of campaign finance reform has been to make it harder to unseat incumbents. That means that politicians spend even more time in the seats of power associating with the rich and connected and less time (as a percentage of their life) associating with the common citizen.
It does... it requires the repeal of the 16th amendment within a certain timeframe after it's enactment, otherwise it becomes void.
A provision which would be quietly nullified shortly before it took effect. If the 16th Ammendment is not repealed at the same time as the FairTax is implemented, we will end up with both income tax and the FairTax.
Every OS is as stable as the user.
So, you are saying that Free BSD is not very stable? Because every FreeBSD user I have ever met has been among the most unstable people I know.
In what way would the FairTax not involve just as much intrusion into my life? Under the FairTax, someone would have to track everything I buy.
Ultimately the problem with the FairTax is that it would require a constitutional ammendment to do away with income tax. Otherwise we would have this national VAT (or sales tax, depending on which flavor actually got implemented...the difference not being important for this discussion) and income tax.
Depending on how they approached it, concluding that the spotted horses were fantasy could be good science.
However, archeology has done this in a manner that suggests those who go into archeology are too quick to conclude that ancient recorders (whether in writing or in art) of history were fantasists of the first order. In the 1800s, archeologists believed that Biblical references to the Assyrians were made up and that the Assyrians never existed because there were no references to the Assyrians in the records from Egypt and other parts of the Middle East that had been recovered at that time. It turns out that when they did finally discover records of the Assyrians that the Biblical accounts were fairly accurate and that the other civilizations contemporary with them hated them so much that they attempted to eliminate all reference to the Assyrians after the fall of Assyria.
There are several other examples of where archeologists dismissed ancient records of something as fantasy because they did not have independent corroboration, only to later have to admit that the records were accurate (at least by the standards of the time the records were made).
There are actually two reasons why archeologists believed that the spotted horses were imaginary. The first is that in dogs a spotted coat is a result of the domestication process (as was demonstrated by a Russian researcher who bred foxes to produce a creature that had the same relationship to foxes that dogs have to wolves--simplification of the study). The second is that earlier studies of the DNA of horses from the time showed only black and brown coats.
The problem is that over time charismatic leaders will convince people to water down the meaning of that constitution, as demonstrated by the current state of U.S. politics. The U.S. federal government has undertaken tasks which the Framers of the Constitution clearly thought they had denied the federal government the authority to do.
Wow, that's a great idea. Chinese workers should join the Chinese unions to protest the government...wait, the Chinese unions are branches of the government. It would be like a U.S. worker joining a U.S. union to protest Democratic Party policies.
You do know that China is the model that Obama Administration members have repeatedly held up of how they would like to do things don't you?
No, they're complaining that the DMCA's safe harbor provisions have a loophole that allows content providers to be free of liability, even when the same infringing content is posted over, and over, and over again.
That is not a "loophole". In order for it to be a loophole, it would have to allow the ISPs to be intentionally encouraging the posting of copyrighted material and not be held liable. The courts have found several services that were not explicitly and solely about copyright infringement liable because they encouraged the use of the service for the purpose of copyright infringement. So, there is no loophole.
The content industry is complaining because they thought they would be able to use the DMCA to shut down copyright infringement and it has not worked out that way.
That is a very good point, while they are probably right that the EAS was not needed on 9/11, it is the type of incident that the system was created for.
Yes, that has been the narrative. But the actual fact is that banks are under more regulations today than they were 30 years ago. What happens is that there is "deregulation" where they replace not very onerous, but useful regulations with regulations that are more expensive to demonstrate compliance with. The result of this is that smaller banks cannot afford to demonstrate that they are in compliance with the regulations and merge with larger banks until now we have several banks which are "too large to fail".
Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were two of the loudest voices resisting reformation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when it became obvious to those with a bit of foresight that the housing market was a bubble that was going to pop. Then when it did and brought down the whole financial sector, they were the two chosen to draft the "reforms" to "keep it from happening again."