Tariffs can be set. Labor laws can be enforced with handcuffs for violating employers. The private sector can be outlawed as speculation and replaced with state-run entities which don't need to worry about competition.
Don't underestimate the power of socialist hand-wringing. The free market is powerful only because the law makes it so.
The constitution is the founding charter of the US government. If it says that it can't do something, it does not have the lawful power to do it. And I struggle to see where the numerous statements that the government does not have the power to violate certain human rights or suspend habeas corpus give it the power to do exactly that when acting beyond its borders.
And regardless of that, Guantanamo Bay has been under effective US rule for at least a century and remains that way over the protests of the Cuban government; it is, for all intents and purposes, part of the US. And if we insist it's part of Cuba anyway, then they're probably subject to some Cuban human rights law(which is seldom if ever enforced, but believe me, Castro left it on the books for anti-US grandstanding if nothing else.) and should be released accordingly.
I'll say this until it gets through your head: while the constitution may not bind *me* outside the US, it most certainly binds the US government, which was expressely forbidden from violating Habeas Corpus in these circumstances by the highest law of the land.
Yeah. They say "Bong hits 4 Jesus" isn't protected speech, as well, and that twenty-year sentences for marijuana home-growing for personal use are justified under the interstate commerce clause.
It takes some *very* creative reading to get "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" to mean "the government can do whatever the fuck it wants to non-Americans, who have no human rights whatsoever."
(Also, it only allows us to "provide for the common defense", making the Iraq war wholly unconstitutional.:) )
It's a constitution regulating the access of and given certain powers to the US government, powers which determine which actions it may legally engage in. There is no exception with regards to whether the recipient of those actions is or is not a US citizen: the government still can't deprive them of their basic rights. Executing Canadians for the fun of it(as opposed to Canadians who have been convicted of murder or maybe espionage or treason in a fair trial) violates the due process clause of the fifth amendment, torturing brits violates the eighth.
That wasn't in my copy of the constitution. It just said things like "shall not be suspended" and "shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" without mentioning citizenship at all.
We aren't allowed to execute Canadians or torture Brits whenever the fuck we feel like it.
The internet, with its ability to let people disseminate ideas and other content easily, and open archives to those who don't feel like going to libraries to track them down, is a threat to the military-industrial complex and many of the other big business lobbies who control the Justice Department. It's not really surprising that they'd back a proposal to kill it for those without deep pockets -- they don't come out for Habeas Corpus, and they don't come out against the possible destruction of the internet.
Kucinich and Gravel are both pro-liberty, pro-freedom, pro-constitution, and pro-privacy, unless you define "liberty" as "the freedom for business owners to do whatever they wish, worker's rights be damned."
What will it take for the public to realize that some things simply can not be handled well by the private sector? The only way to stop people from ripping us off for a necessity they have a natural monopoly in is for we the people to take control of it ourselves.
Yeah, but they were *pirates*. Pirates who used religion as an excuse and justified it as stealing from and damaging the economies of Christians, but pirates nonetheless.
And Christians did the same thing at the time. Knights of Malta and all that.
Terrorism isn't measured in dollars and cents, but in the cost in human lives. The word you're looking for is "sabotage" and it's a legitimate resistance tactic.
See what capitalism does, in practice? Sure, it might not be pure Wealth of Nations, but since when was Stalin's Russia pure Communist Manifesto? When the wealth becomes concentrated, the businessmen bribe("lobby", "give campaign contributions") the elected officials, and everything goes straight to hell.
Amusingly enough, the link seems to have been slashdotted. If you're gonna flood slashdot with links to your site... at least make sure the server can take the hit.
Alternatively, if we equalized the amount of money each person had, it would at least get rid of unfair influences on the political process -- let people *REALLY* vote with their pocketbooks, but on the principle of one person, one vote.
Remember back when massive civil disobedience to a point where the vast majority of the population defied the law got the law changed, or a revolution going?
I miss those days.
Any technical solution that can be used by parents to censor their children can be used just as easily by governments to censor their people.
(Of the 'teach the the back button' and 'old enough to google it, old enough to know it' philosophy, myself.)
Slashdot Mirror
Tariffs can be set. Labor laws can be enforced with handcuffs for violating employers. The private sector can be outlawed as speculation and replaced with state-run entities which don't need to worry about competition. Don't underestimate the power of socialist hand-wringing. The free market is powerful only because the law makes it so.
Since IT workers are obviously going to elect corrupt mob bosses as union leaders.
The constitution is the founding charter of the US government. If it says that it can't do something, it does not have the lawful power to do it. And I struggle to see where the numerous statements that the government does not have the power to violate certain human rights or suspend habeas corpus give it the power to do exactly that when acting beyond its borders. And regardless of that, Guantanamo Bay has been under effective US rule for at least a century and remains that way over the protests of the Cuban government; it is, for all intents and purposes, part of the US. And if we insist it's part of Cuba anyway, then they're probably subject to some Cuban human rights law(which is seldom if ever enforced, but believe me, Castro left it on the books for anti-US grandstanding if nothing else.) and should be released accordingly. I'll say this until it gets through your head: while the constitution may not bind *me* outside the US, it most certainly binds the US government, which was expressely forbidden from violating Habeas Corpus in these circumstances by the highest law of the land.
Yeah. They say "Bong hits 4 Jesus" isn't protected speech, as well, and that twenty-year sentences for marijuana home-growing for personal use are justified under the interstate commerce clause. It takes some *very* creative reading to get "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America" to mean "the government can do whatever the fuck it wants to non-Americans, who have no human rights whatsoever." (Also, it only allows us to "provide for the common defense", making the Iraq war wholly unconstitutional. :) )
It's fairly obviously in the sense of "We the people of the united states establish this as our form of government." Read the whole sentence.
It does when the United States Government is the ones locking them up to begin with! How dense can you be to ignore this?
It's a constitution regulating the access of and given certain powers to the US government, powers which determine which actions it may legally engage in. There is no exception with regards to whether the recipient of those actions is or is not a US citizen: the government still can't deprive them of their basic rights. Executing Canadians for the fun of it(as opposed to Canadians who have been convicted of murder or maybe espionage or treason in a fair trial) violates the due process clause of the fifth amendment, torturing brits violates the eighth.
That wasn't in my copy of the constitution. It just said things like "shall not be suspended" and "shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech" without mentioning citizenship at all. We aren't allowed to execute Canadians or torture Brits whenever the fuck we feel like it.
As a hotmail user, I have no problems recieving regular e-mails from the SPUSA mailing list. Sometimes it really is incompetence, not censorship.
The internet, with its ability to let people disseminate ideas and other content easily, and open archives to those who don't feel like going to libraries to track them down, is a threat to the military-industrial complex and many of the other big business lobbies who control the Justice Department. It's not really surprising that they'd back a proposal to kill it for those without deep pockets -- they don't come out for Habeas Corpus, and they don't come out against the possible destruction of the internet.
No, it's what happens when you throw the socialists out of office and replace them with moderates. :P
I'm sure it's copypasta.
Kucinich and Gravel are both pro-liberty, pro-freedom, pro-constitution, and pro-privacy, unless you define "liberty" as "the freedom for business owners to do whatever they wish, worker's rights be damned."
Do you even play games? Which were the good, successful games that were all about homosexuality again? Final Fantasy VII.
Like how they take advantage of their control over the postal service?
What will it take for the public to realize that some things simply can not be handled well by the private sector? The only way to stop people from ripping us off for a necessity they have a natural monopoly in is for we the people to take control of it ourselves.
Yeah, but they were *pirates*. Pirates who used religion as an excuse and justified it as stealing from and damaging the economies of Christians, but pirates nonetheless. And Christians did the same thing at the time. Knights of Malta and all that.
Terrorism isn't measured in dollars and cents, but in the cost in human lives. The word you're looking for is "sabotage" and it's a legitimate resistance tactic.
See what capitalism does, in practice? Sure, it might not be pure Wealth of Nations, but since when was Stalin's Russia pure Communist Manifesto? When the wealth becomes concentrated, the businessmen bribe("lobby", "give campaign contributions") the elected officials, and everything goes straight to hell.
Amusingly enough, the link seems to have been slashdotted. If you're gonna flood slashdot with links to your site... at least make sure the server can take the hit.
Somehow, I have a feeling that nothing downloaded off TPB is *funding* anyone.
Though I'm still amused by how torrenting mp3s means I'm robbing the artists, but torrenting CP means I'm funding the pedophiles.
Alternatively, if we equalized the amount of money each person had, it would at least get rid of unfair influences on the political process -- let people *REALLY* vote with their pocketbooks, but on the principle of one person, one vote.
Remember back when massive civil disobedience to a point where the vast majority of the population defied the law got the law changed, or a revolution going? I miss those days.
Any technical solution that can be used by parents to censor their children can be used just as easily by governments to censor their people. (Of the 'teach the the back button' and 'old enough to google it, old enough to know it' philosophy, myself.)
I think I suggested abolishing driving once, which would certainly be up there. (Though you might've missed the thread.)