Can you cite a "natural monopoly" that somehow existed without government laws protecting it.
(You might get me to say Microsoft is, but that might be a stretch ans people appear to be happy with their products by enlarge.. even if people like me are not.)
A "natural" monopoly if it did exist, doesn't really harm customers because you would have to force customers to use it, there is no force.. the only entity that can legally use force, is the government. You might say the government has a monopoly on force. People like to say barrier to market but thats not true as a multi-millionaire like Craig McCaw can easily start up his own ISP to compete in fact thats exactly what he did, its called ClearWire.
You can bet ClearWire would absolutely run fiber to your house if they were allowed to.
Bahh.. lobbyist ignore Paul.. they wouldn't even buy him a cup of coffee, because he refuses to vote for their laws. !!! Wait.. thats a GOOD thing! I would like to see lobbyist continue to ignore future President Paul.;-)
You cant get FiOS in Redmond WA because the City of Redmond wants Verizon to install new Telephone poles as part of the deal, Verizon said no, so the City is punishing them by not allowing them to run fiber in Redmond. (Yet its in every city around Redmond.)
How can the government get away with saying you can only have one Telco and one Cable provider in your area.. thats just stupid.
Thats true, you are talking about the government. You can hide stuff in plain sight with those morons.
However truecrypt is good enough, the hidden volume only appears to be random data so I don't think there would be any way to tell.
Personally if it was me.. I'd just tell them no and go to jail, Didn't Josh Wolfe do that, go to jail for nothing because he wouldn't turn over a video tape, after he got out of jail he put the tape on the web and there was nothing on it. Someone once said you only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
I agree with a lot of what you say but I have a problem with a few points.
The Constitution doesn't grant the government "powers to protect rights". It prohibits the government from using its power to take rights away.
Placing your freedom of speech in the hands of the government is a very dangerous thing to do.
AT&T is absolutely a monopoly as are all telcos because the government can limit who provides services in there area. This is why things like WiMax, ClearWire, and DishNetwork exist because they have to find new ways to proved service to people as the government wont let them run a wire to the home.
The problem with the loophole is that government treats that data as if it were AT&T's. This is much like if the government treated you gym locker and the contents there in as belonging to the gym. We need to find a way to get them to have to provide a warrant for each and every search of property or data. (data falling into papers and effects, under the constitution.)
Fascism is when government controls the business. Corporatism is when business controls the government. However the end result of both is the same.
Far as I'm concerned with the feds allowing their latest merger and AT&T's willingness to turn over any data they ask for.. AT&T might as well be the government. Good ol' SovietBell. heh
What, exactly, constitutes "suspicious" and wouldn't that be almost impossible to code in any meaningful way? Hell, we humans can't even agree on what "suspicion" looks like and now they want to teach a computer. Good luck with that. You are on the terrorist no fly list because every day you leave for work at 8:42 am Yesterday you left for work at 8:30am then went back to your house and left at 8:45. That's highly suspicious to our computer, its wondering why you are hanging around in your own neighborhood. Exactly how can you account for the 15 minutes lost time? Do you know Osama Bin Laden?
Yes, The Constitutions says "people" not "citizens", and its not a typo.. If we believe our rights come not from government but from god (or from nature) then all men from all countries have rights.. one of those rights is the right to a fair trial.
After reading some of your other comments, it seems that you have a real disdain for liberty. I find it difficult you might imagine to confront such blind hatred as you present in your arguments, the sum of them amounts to little more than calling all libertarians and indeed anyone else stupid. You might as well call them all ugly too as it is as convincing. When I attempted to correct your statement I had little idea what a volcano of hate you were, had I known.. I wouldn't have spoken to you.
With statements like:
Great efforts of various greed mongers resulted in adoption of the term "Libertarian" to somehow mean something "better" then those silly, old-fashioned, "commie", passe Anarchists, at least in the so-called "Mainstream Media". But the general idea is the same: get rid of "Teh Evil Gubmnt!!!" for it gets in the way of "individual achievement" or Anarcho-syndicate Communes or what not. Did you really think I would take you seriously?
Prevention would be nice, I don't know how practical it is. How do you know someone will commit a crime until they do, we cant put people in jail for crimes they *might* commit.
As I see things.. the tax level is almost irreverent now, the big danger today is inflation and the devaluation of the dollar as the government just prints the money to pay the bills. Today when we need to spend 190 Billion for a war or natural disaster or whatever.. there is no "taxing" done.. the government just calls up the Federal Reserve and the guy on the other end of the phone types in 190B into their account. The creation of new money into the system is legal counterfiting, it makes the value of our money drop.. and it's actually worse than that.. the 190B is not a "gift" it's a loan from the Federal Reserve bank to the government and the duty to pay belongs to the American people.. Our debt is so large now that our taxes barely pay the interest on it. Every year Ron Paul questions the Chairman of the Fed on this..
Ya know.. I've had a epiphany. I don't know what I was thinking wanting people to control their own lives, how crazy of me.. I see the true solution to all the problems in the world now is to put YOU in charge.
Well yes, if we can reduce government even a little that would be good. No, your not going to see a total anarcho-capitalism system take over the day after Ron Paul gets elected.. but yes, you might see a little more money in you wallet and fewer vice cops out there.
Just keep in mind that there is no crime unless someone is hurt and the goal of justice is not so much to punish.. but to try to have the guilty repair the damage done to the victim (if possible).
You might get me to agree there are crimes that the state can present to the people, but I just don't really like that reasoning. I don't really believe in the legitimacy of the government much and look at it as its something man just made up one day to control others. Since government is fictions and does not really have anything combined with the fact that there is no one person that controls government. I'm not essentially sure it can morally press charges against someone else in the event of another's death unless.. it could lay some sort of claim on that dead persons life.
So, then you agree that the First Amendment did not affect Section 3? It does not affect it "really" as I don't believe we should be able to have the secrets in the first place. Also the first amendment comes after it, and it needs to be in a time of war, lastly it would have to have resulted in an actual crime such as the death of people.
If all of that applies.. then yes, treason is probably an acceptable charge.
It all depends if we are talking legally or philosophically.. Legally, we can apparently break our own laws and arrest people for anything we want any time we want. We call it legal and everything is cool.. The important question is should we? Philosophically I don't even really believe in this government thing or the ability to really be a traitor to it.. so not even the Constitution applies philosophically.. There was at one time some smart men who understood liberty, and they though it was a good idea to have a tiny limited government.. and if that's as bad as government has to be.. then I suppose I'm ok with it.
zOMG! Robber Baronez and Jews taking over the world some peoples is getting richez an we hates them! IS NOT FAIR. cry cry cry You keep saying Libertarian, yet I'm actually an anarchist.;)
Oddly enough the people who you would call "the evil free market capitalist robber barons" were very involved in government, and had law written to suit them. Ironic that the term robber baron is used as one might ask "Who put the baron in robber baron?" The very term itself applies to the title of nobility and the right to own land. Thus government facilitates their robbery. Again, you shoot yourself in the foot as the very example you give is an example of why government control of business does not work. Monopolies can not exist without government because government is the only one that can legally force you to do something. When I talk about force, I'm talking about the governments ability to hold a gun to your head and shoot you if you do not comply. Your an idiot if you look at force as driving 30 minutes our of your way (holey crap, not 30 minutes!) however thats *IS* absolutely a choice. Naturally people make the most appealing choice, they get the best deal they can.. if they were unsatisfied with the terms of the deal (such as the requirement to drive 30 minutes out of their way) they would "choose" another option. Some people choose the less appealing option to cook their own food.. it's not FORCE because they don't want to pay for servants. That's absurd.
If you want to see what our government will do to you, go walk straight up into a cops face and say "I'm not going to do what you tell me." and let's just see how long it takes you to lean what force really is...and in the end sir, you nor your government have any authority to tell me what I can buy, or who I can sell to.
I'm not going to get into everything you say as its just absurd and a waste of my time anyhow as you believe what you do and nobody is going to change your mind.. but I will make some comments.
None of which are viable competitors in the main arena we are discussing. This is equivalent to proposing that one can "choose" rain water instead of one of the products owned by the Pepsi/Coke duo-poly. Or just like one can "choose" to walk as a "competition" to owning a car. Or eating grass as an "alternative" to General Mills merchandise. You have plenty of choices in beverages and transportation, and just because you (and others) choose the most appealing choice, it does not mean you are forced to make it. The government is the only one that can legally force you to do something.
It kills me that the likes of you always whine about "free market" and at the same time have no objections whatsoever to having competition reduced to two or even one global supplier by the naturally occuring flaws of the marketplace. Somehow the reverse relationship between efficiency of the marketplace and the number of competitors, about which Adam Smith was so concerned, is unable to jolt you out of your greed-motivated ideological stupor. Talk about cognitive dissonance. Do you like the Daily Show? Alan Greenspan was on it a few days ago and flat out said we do not have a "free market" in any way shape or form. Watch yourself. http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml
You believe this current system we have sucks, I agree with you! Where we disagree is what we call this system and how to fix it. I call our current system a Mercantile or Corporatist system, where the government plays a protectionist role in the economy for the sake of our investors and corporations. I believe that can be fixed by eliminating the ability to incorporate at all (thus denying the special legal protection to shady business men, as thats all a corporation really is.) and implementing a free market capitalist system, something much like to what we had at the birth of this nation and the system that made us the most wealthy nation able to rival the ancient wealth of Europe in a few short decades.
You seem to only want more government "tweaking" of a broken Mercantile system.. or perhaps your a fascist and want government to control all business.
If the attendee is dead, he can't really file a personal injury suit, though, right? Sure, it's possible his family or estate could do so, but what if he has no family and never created a legal estate? Everyone has family, friends or even in the most extreme, and unlikely case an employer, that can file the suit in the case of death. I don't like the idea of the state filing charges because the state is not actually the one harmed. If there is no victim to a crime.. I'm not sure we can say a crime even occurred.
You say the government cannot charge you with a crime for speaking, so let's try a different example: what if you are guilty of speaking of state secrets to a foreign power? For example, what if you tell country X (keeping it deliberately vague, but assume country X wishes us harm) how to bypass a particular security system so that they can sneak a dirty bomb into the country? Would civil suits be appropriate here, too? Sorry I'm going to rant here.. because I believe that the CIA and other secret government agencies are quite un-constitutional and are an affront to a free society governed by the people.
There are no checks and ballances on the CIA, their budget, personnel and documents are secret
We now know that the CIA was involved in several assassinations of foreign heads of states and many more planed assassinations including a planed one of Castro, not to mention the attempted overthrow of his country with the Bay of Pigs invasion.. since when does our nation murder foreign leaders?.. well according to the CIA's Crown jewels we do it all the time.
CIA involvement lead to the rise of Saddam Hussein, they also installed the Shaw of Iran. and how about Osama Bin Laden? He is also a creation of the CIA.
No, the CIA and other secret government agencies are quite illegal. They have done us far more harm than good, the CIA has created more enemies then we can count.
However to answer your question, just look to the constitution. Article 3, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Slashdot Mirror
Help some Busshie came by and modded me troll!
Can you cite a "natural monopoly" that somehow existed without government laws protecting it.
(You might get me to say Microsoft is, but that might be a stretch ans people appear to be happy with their products by enlarge.. even if people like me are not.)
A "natural" monopoly if it did exist, doesn't really harm customers because you would have to force customers to use it, there is no force.. the only entity that can legally use force, is the government. You might say the government has a monopoly on force. People like to say barrier to market but thats not true as a multi-millionaire like Craig McCaw can easily start up his own ISP to compete in fact thats exactly what he did, its called ClearWire.
You can bet ClearWire would absolutely run fiber to your house if they were allowed to.
Bahh.. lobbyist ignore Paul.. they wouldn't even buy him a cup of coffee, because he refuses to vote for their laws. !!! Wait.. thats a GOOD thing! I would like to see lobbyist continue to ignore future President Paul. ;-)
Yeah, there isn't much that can be done. A president just does not have the power to fix the problem. (I mean a president other than Dictator Bush.)
You need to put heat on the local city government. (and you better not run a small business if you plan on doing that.)
Seriously..
You cant get FiOS in Redmond WA because the City of Redmond wants Verizon to install new Telephone poles as part of the deal, Verizon said no, so the City is punishing them by not allowing them to run fiber in Redmond. (Yet its in every city around Redmond.)
How can the government get away with saying you can only have one Telco and one Cable provider in your area.. thats just stupid.
So true,
When you combine those creeps with Apple what do you get?
Totalitarian control of your iPhone.
Thats true, you are talking about the government. You can hide stuff in plain sight with those morons.
However truecrypt is good enough, the hidden volume only appears to be random data so I don't think there would be any way to tell.
Personally if it was me.. I'd just tell them no and go to jail, Didn't Josh Wolfe do that, go to jail for nothing because he wouldn't turn over a video tape, after he got out of jail he put the tape on the web and there was nothing on it. Someone once said you only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
I agree with a lot of what you say but I have a problem with a few points.
The Constitution doesn't grant the government "powers to protect rights". It prohibits the government from using its power to take rights away.
Placing your freedom of speech in the hands of the government is a very dangerous thing to do.
AT&T is absolutely a monopoly as are all telcos because the government can limit who provides services in there area. This is why things like WiMax, ClearWire, and DishNetwork exist because they have to find new ways to proved service to people as the government wont let them run a wire to the home.
The problem with the loophole is that government treats that data as if it were AT&T's. This is much like if the government treated you gym locker and the contents there in as belonging to the gym. We need to find a way to get them to have to provide a warrant for each and every search of property or data. (data falling into papers and effects, under the constitution.)
Fascism is when government controls the business. Corporatism is when business controls the government. However the end result of both is the same.
I was thinking more (Police State) CommunistBell, but yeah, its fascism.
Please,
Then we can all give Apple and AT&T the big ol' finger.
I remember when AT&T was giving people fines for installing "foreign devices" like answering machines.
We should have never allowed these tow companies to get together.
Far as I'm concerned with the feds allowing their latest merger and AT&T's willingness to turn over any data they ask for.. AT&T might as well be the government. Good ol' SovietBell. heh
I can see masks become popular again.
ITs ok, I got a medical excuse, its called the "police state phobia". I wave at nobody, hide under garbage cans, and talk to benches.
Now days they would have searched your car for drugs if you told them you went to a "party". Even if you weren't drinking.
Yes, The Constitutions says "people" not "citizens", and its not a typo.. If we believe our rights come not from government but from god (or from nature) then all men from all countries have rights.. one of those rights is the right to a fair trial.
With statements like: Great efforts of various greed mongers resulted in adoption of the term "Libertarian" to somehow mean something "better" then those silly, old-fashioned, "commie", passe Anarchists, at least in the so-called "Mainstream Media". But the general idea is the same: get rid of "Teh Evil Gubmnt!!!" for it gets in the way of "individual achievement" or Anarcho-syndicate Communes or what not. Did you really think I would take you seriously?
Prevention would be nice, I don't know how practical it is. How do you know someone will commit a crime until they do, we cant put people in jail for crimes they *might* commit.
As I see things.. the tax level is almost irreverent now, the big danger today is inflation and the devaluation of the dollar as the government just prints the money to pay the bills. Today when we need to spend 190 Billion for a war or natural disaster or whatever.. there is no "taxing" done.. the government just calls up the Federal Reserve and the guy on the other end of the phone types in 190B into their account. The creation of new money into the system is legal counterfiting, it makes the value of our money drop.. and it's actually worse than that.. the 190B is not a "gift" it's a loan from the Federal Reserve bank to the government and the duty to pay belongs to the American people.. Our debt is so large now that our taxes barely pay the interest on it. Every year Ron Paul questions the Chairman of the Fed on this..
http://www.youtube.com/v/xTBrJNipytg
http://www.ronpaulaudio.com/rpaudio/RonPaulBernankeHearingQ&A071807.mp3
Well.. heh.. This is a long complicated issue.. you have to look into it more on your own.
Ya know.. I've had a epiphany. I don't know what I was thinking wanting people to control their own lives, how crazy of me.. I see the true solution to all the problems in the world now is to put YOU in charge.
Well yes, if we can reduce government even a little that would be good. No, your not going to see a total anarcho-capitalism system take over the day after Ron Paul gets elected.. but yes, you might see a little more money in you wallet and fewer vice cops out there.
Just keep in mind that there is no crime unless someone is hurt and the goal of justice is not so much to punish.. but to try to have the guilty repair the damage done to the victim (if possible).
If all of that applies.. then yes, treason is probably an acceptable charge.
It all depends if we are talking legally or philosophically.. Legally, we can apparently break our own laws and arrest people for anything we want any time we want. We call it legal and everything is cool.. The important question is should we? Philosophically I don't even really believe in this government thing or the ability to really be a traitor to it.. so not even the Constitution applies philosophically.. There was at one time some smart men who understood liberty, and they though it was a good idea to have a tiny limited government.. and if that's as bad as government has to be.. then I suppose I'm ok with it.
Oddly enough the people who you would call "the evil free market capitalist robber barons" were very involved in government, and had law written to suit them. Ironic that the term robber baron is used as one might ask "Who put the baron in robber baron?" The very term itself applies to the title of nobility and the right to own land. Thus government facilitates their robbery. Again, you shoot yourself in the foot as the very example you give is an example of why government control of business does not work. Monopolies can not exist without government because government is the only one that can legally force you to do something. When I talk about force, I'm talking about the governments ability to hold a gun to your head and shoot you if you do not comply. Your an idiot if you look at force as driving 30 minutes our of your way (holey crap, not 30 minutes!) however thats *IS* absolutely a choice. Naturally people make the most appealing choice, they get the best deal they can.. if they were unsatisfied with the terms of the deal (such as the requirement to drive 30 minutes out of their way) they would "choose" another option. Some people choose the less appealing option to cook their own food.. it's not FORCE because they don't want to pay for servants. That's absurd.
If you want to see what our government will do to you, go walk straight up into a cops face and say "I'm not going to do what you tell me." and let's just see how long it takes you to lean what force really is.
You believe this current system we have sucks, I agree with you! Where we disagree is what we call this system and how to fix it. I call our current system a Mercantile or Corporatist system, where the government plays a protectionist role in the economy for the sake of our investors and corporations. I believe that can be fixed by eliminating the ability to incorporate at all (thus denying the special legal protection to shady business men, as thats all a corporation really is.) and implementing a free market capitalist system, something much like to what we had at the birth of this nation and the system that made us the most wealthy nation able to rival the ancient wealth of Europe in a few short decades.
You seem to only want more government "tweaking" of a broken Mercantile system.. or perhaps your a fascist and want government to control all business.
There are no checks and ballances on the CIA, their budget, personnel and documents are secret
We now know that the CIA was involved in several assassinations of foreign heads of states and many more planed assassinations including a planed one of Castro, not to mention the attempted overthrow of his country with the Bay of Pigs invasion.. since when does our nation murder foreign leaders?
CIA involvement lead to the rise of Saddam Hussein, they also installed the Shaw of Iran. and how about Osama Bin Laden? He is also a creation of the CIA.
How about the Gulf of Tonkin, or the bombing of the Marines Barrack in Lebanon? The list is endless.
No, the CIA and other secret government agencies are quite illegal. They have done us far more harm than good, the CIA has created more enemies then we can count.
However to answer your question, just look to the constitution.
Article 3, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.