but the pattern in rulings related to "Terry stops" seems to be the other way. Florida recently ruled that a search of a car someone just left was approprite "to ensure officer safety", though a search of a house was not.
I'm trying to figure out how a knife in a car would pose a danger to a police officer when the owner is sitting in the back of a patrol car.
Sadly: the tendancy for decades seems to be away from protection of the citizen's rights.
When I was born, my foot prints were put on the birth certificate, which is on file, for identification (my social security card validates against it). When I got my state ID, that had my picture. When I got my SBU clearance, my fingerprints and photo went on record.
It seems to me that the line in question is fictitious. The only question is the efficiency of the ID method, and the security of the database.
The first is the nature of how sales tax exists. It is a tax on the customer collected by the merchant. That's an idea that works fine with brick-and-morter: but it is very odd to do mail-order.
Also, despite the fact that sales tax is on the customer, and therefore in the customer's state: many states want to charge sales tax when the merchant is in their state as well, potentially double-taxing a sale.
But a bigger problem exists with non-state sales tax. If Pinellas county, or worse Kenneth City, FL pass a 1% sales tax: they don't exactly rush out to tell Amazon. It's simple enough for brick-and-morter to keep track of the taxes where they are, but to keep track of every state, county, and municipality in the US would indeed be burdensome.
We need to go back and redesign, among other things, the entire concept of sales tax to work in the modern economy.
Does it require that we go around the world with a black marker redacting their names from all those printed newspapers from before they serve their time? How would you like to make everyone just "forget" as well?
I suppose I understand Germany's position: they did their time, you aren't allowed to punish them more, but just *change their actual names*. It would be *much* easier than trying to put the genie back in the bottle.
Anyway, back to the story, whenever her computer screws up, I make it a point to note that I'm saving its life. It gets her all riled up, stating she'll just buy a new computer - to which I reply I'll simply buy a new dog when mine gets hurt - or even a new girlfriend when mine is broken.
So Mac copied Xerox Star, and Windows Copied Mac? Do you know who copied whom for OS/2, Amegia Workbench, NeXT, Linux, BeOS, and GeoWorks; all of which have similar WIMP interfaces?
It would be silly to say that any (other than STAR) evolved in a vacuum; but "borrowing ideas" has happened in every direction.
One problem is that you are contradicting yourself.
You tie miserableness to high weight, but then also map out a weight loss as though the weight will always be high.
A 240lb person who moves to 220lb in three months will not spend the next 3 years a 220. His weight will be constantly moving down putting him in that "slim theoretician" range.
Also, presuming he's muscle building (as opposed to aerobics, which I personally think is a bad way to do weight loss), then his fat loss will accellerate over time. The muscle he built in the first 3 months will continue to consume calories over the next three months. The muscle he adds to that in the second three months will also burn calories. Finally, he will be ablt to build faser (till he plateaus) later on because of the improved enduarnce from earlier.
So no. The "feeling misearble" goes away with time, and the results accellerate... though I don't recommend using a scale as your measure early in (got for enduarnce / strength goals).
But you are right in the need to change habits. For some, that happens automatically. When I am doing circuit training, I loose my taste for soad, most candy, and beef... I start craving chicken.
Yes people eat because they are depressed. People also workout because they are depressed. The latter works better and is better for you. Ditto bored.
So you are right: habitual eaters need to retrain those habits for good results. That's much easier to do when you have another outlet.
To put it another way: a dieter looses weight by denying themselves eating. An athlete looses weight by replacing some eating with exercise.
Voicemail is stored by my provider and accessed by me logging in over a service. I don't see what possible difference exists. Does this mean that voicemail is similarly not protected?
some reporter inadvertently compromised the secrecy of the operation. The ATF proceeded even though they knew this, having been informed by one of their own agents inside the Davidians.
Which was rather my point to the earlier poster. It seems rather counter-intuitive that the ATF would choose to open fire on otherwise cooperating people with the news camera behind them.
As for shooting at government law enforcement officers, you have the right to defend yourself against such officers if they are acting illegally. The Davidians were under the impression that they were about to be attacked. The ATF action of rushing the "compound" confirmed this impression.
Actually you have no such right. If the police come rushing into your house you are required to comply.
If you are in reasonable fear of your life, you may have justification for acting in self-defense: but such a fear doesn't play out with the behavior of the Branch Dividians; who at no point took the opportunity to surrender, even much later in front of the world news.
The blame rests far more heavily on the ATF. Like all of our law enforcement agencies, the ATF have become militarized; they see themselves as Rambos, not as peace officers. Both at the local and Federal levels, police agencies are no longer taught that they have a duty to use minimum force, or to de-escalate tense situations. Their training and their equipment is military, and their first impulse is to apply firepower.
There are a number of different points there.
If you look at the history of increasing armament of police: it was in response to being out-armed repeatedly. Even the "overwhelming force" doctrine is about minimizing danger to all.
It's also not true to paint all police agencies with the same brush: and if you truely believe that police 50 or 100 or 150 years ago were more gentle, you've not been paying attention.
All that said: I have great issue with the behavior of many police agencies and their misuse of force. The DEA (and many local DE divisions within the police), and the over use of force at the INS come to mind redily.
I think everyone agrees ATF screwed the pooch here, as did the FBI. That was no reason for an eaarlier poster to exaggerate into hyperbole the error, nor falsely paint the BDs as legal or well behaved.
Oh, and if I ever find out I'm about to be raided: I'll likely drive myself to the nearest police agency and turn myself in. Well, first to my lawyer, then with him to the police.
That's what most virtual modeling does, whether it's stress analysis in AutoCAD or reproducing that "tube warmth" from a solid-state amplifier through massaging the wave.
They 5th and 14th ammendments are laws, which were passed by votes of congress and then votes in the sates.
No, they are not "laws" in the usual sense, they are amendments to the Constitution. There's a difference between a law and the Constitution.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land" - The US Constitution, Article VI
Bluntly, you are just inventing your own definitions of words at this point.
And the 5th and 14th amendment don't grant you those rights, they merely affirm and clarify that you already have those rights. If those amendments were repealed, you'd still have those rights and SCOTUS would still enforce those rights, since the are the underlying basis for the Constitution and assumed to be self-evident and inalienable.
How am I supposed to argue with an unevidenced hypothetical. Certainly SCOTUS did not rule granting rights in ammendments before they were passed, which would include the 14th, 19th (women's sufferage), and the 13th and 15th (barring slavery).
The Constitution is "law" in the sense that it is legal language, but it isn't "laws" in the sense in which laws that Congress passes during its normal operation.
So things passed in special session aren't "law"? Again, you are just inventing terms and distinctions that don't exist.
Furthermore, when voting on constitutional law, people don't vote on their preferences, the vote on conformance with the self-evident and inalienable rights.
Like when they voted in term limits, or voted out alcholol? Prove your claim.
And just like you can turn a democracy into a non-democracy by voting away your own right to vote, you can also turn a democracy into a non-democracy by voting away the self-evident and inalienable rights of others.
Olny if said right is a right to vote.
It's relevant, because (1) it shows you're not along in making that mistake--it's a common mistake, usually linked to some political positions--and (2) you can find plenty of explanations why you're wrong.
Not true explanations however.
Yes, and none of that changes the fact that the US is a representative democracy, just like all other modern democracies.
The term "republic" has two usages, one being the American one ("representative democracy") and the European one ("not a monarchy"). All modern democracies are "republics" according to either usage. And all western republics (including the US) are democracies.
"The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America) is a federal constitutional republic" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states
Your rights to your property are not created by law, you have them. The framers were clear about this, but the 5th and 14th Amendment explicitly clarify this point.
They 5th and 14th ammendments are laws, which were passed by votes of congress and then votes in the sates.
When you cite the constitution, you cite the law.
Look, you can vote on a referendum and you can get laws passed. But you can do that only for laws that are actually compatible with the Constitution, otherwise SCOTUS will just strike down the law.
You are acting as though the Constitution isn't law. You are listing as though it were special, that laws have heiarchies. A county law would also be tossed for conflicting with a state law.
In addition, the Constitution itself can be amended, but that can't be accomplished simply by a majority vote.
So your objection is "simple majority"? It's OK, as long as it's a 2/3rds vote.
yes, democracies can self-destruct through voting
Of course they can. Simply vote away your right to vote. That would take a 2/3rd majority and radification by the states here.
Oh, please, don't start that tired argument again. I mean, seriously, how do you think government in Japan, France, Britain, or Germany actually works? All democracies in the world have representatives these days.
Your dismissal of a simple fact as "tired argument" is irellevent.
The other countries you mentioned use various parlimentary systems, where there's a head of government (a Prime Minister) and a head of state (a president or monarch). There's a parliment, which is elected by party and percentage of vote. In England there is also a house of lords, which is heriditary.
Technically, in England, the monarch appoints the PM, but functionally they always appoint candidate given by the ruling party or coalition.
From there the PM appoints a cabinet. This cabinet basically advises and tubber-stamps the PMs rulings and laws. Stuff ends up in front of parliment, but it's a very different system from ours.
For countries like Germany, where all positions are elected or appointed by elected officials; you have a republic, like to do in the US (the proper name for "Germany" is "the Federal Republic of Germany". Notice "republic" is in the name).
All democracies in the world have representatives these days. US representatives actually have less power than in most other democracies, making the US one of the least "republic" democracies in the world.
On the national level, nothing is done by referrendum or direct vote. I would say our represtitives are the most powerful. In the other countries you mentioned, the PM holds more power then the president (constitutionally) holds here.
You seem to have slept through civics: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These rights are unalienable and self-evident; they don't derive from voting.
Really? I thought that the declaration of Independance was ratified by a vote of the continental congress. Actually, I'm sure of it.
In the US, your rights aren't given to you by law, you are born with them. You have a right to your property and life, and your neighbor has a right to their property and their life. As long as you aren't in conflict, there is no law that can tell either of you what to do. Any law that tried to restrict your or their rights arbitrarily would likely be unconstitutional.
Property wasn't mentioned in your quote from the Declaration of Independance. It's not mentioned until the Constution (highest *law* of the land) which was also voted on by the continental congress and then ratified (by vote) by the states.
The possible choices that laws and voters can make here are pretty tightly constrained by your property rights and the property rights of your neighbor.
Which property rights exactly? You've not cited any. I guarentee any you do cite will be bills (or ammendments) that were voted into law.
(Maybe what's confusing you about these examples is that any of the choices is a possible choice under some circumstances; however, the choices are not arbitrary.)
The problem being that I am not confused. You are simply ignoring the entire process by which US law is created.
No, it is not. Democracy means that the power of government derives from the consent of the people. It does not mean that the majority can vote on everything.
So as long as the people choose to follow their monarch, it's democracy? Of course not.
Heck, the US isn't even a democracy, it's a republic. Why? Because we don't directly vote on issues, we have representitives. (technically, it's something of a hybrid as we vote on some issues).
By the Constitution and the courts, but not by voting.
How is what is in the constitution determined if not by voting? The courts decide against what? The law? How is the law determined if not by voting?
The basic principle is that you can do with your property whatever you like, unless you infringe on the rights of others in doing so.
How do we know what the rights of other are if not by law, and how are those laws determined if not by voting?
Can I build a wall on my land that blocks my neighbor's view? Can I burn trash on my land that fills my neighbor's air with soot? Where are the cutoffs?
It's fine to expouse a basic tennent: but determinging which tennant will be followed, and the specifics, require a body of laws. These need to be created somehow.
It is definitional to democracy that they are created by the vote of the people.
You may believe or refuse to believe whatever you wish. You've drawn the conclusion because I used the same analogy used by anti-gay-marriage people aruging slippery-slope.
I was not arguing slippery slope. I was arguing that the person I responded to advocated no rules what-so-ever. He also asserted that homicide was an appropriate response.
Personally: I think that the government has no business in "marriage" what-so-ever. I think that a package of joint-ownership / inheritence / power-of-attorney when incapacitated contracts would serve the actual needs and remove all of this silly attempt to tie anything to "morality" in some way, shape or form.
That any arbitray number of compitent adults can enter into such a contract is a no-brainer. It's this silly need by all involved (hetero and homosexuals alike) to have the government validate their "marriage" that stops us from just making a useful and pragmatic solution.
But if we are going to validate heterosexual marriages, then I think we need to validate homosexual and polygamous marriages as well. I don't see any constitutionally (or morally) valid reason to exclude any of those groups from rights granted to another.
Finally: I don't believe I've backed off on anything. If you are seeing something different in later posts than in earlier ones it is in the eye of the reader (and perhaps more detailed typing on my part). I am advocating *more* postitions than I did initially, as I've been called to task on things (like gay marraige) I had not originally commented on at all.
Let's just throw up a bunch of straw men and hope that a sufficient distraction is created.
Although I'm certain you intend this as an accusation against my post, I think you'll find that it is you, not I who is doing so. I will specifically illustrate below.
Might as well get the insult in there too, right? But seriously, what are you talking about? It's idiotic for one adult to marry another adult, and to have that marriage legally recognized?
That voting only for your own rights and restrictions would be silly. One doesn't need laws to coform their own behavior. The whole point of laws is to control everyone.
I should hope so. But the age of consent has nothing to do with what's under discussion - legal recognition of marriage of consenting adults.
The topic discssion is about outing petitioners.
The comment I responded to was one that said no one should ever restrict anyone else from doing anything.
Do you agree that no laws should be passed to restrict anything? You don't (as you don't want 9-year-olds to enter into legal contracts), therefore you agree with me.
I wasn't discussing gay marriage at all. I didn't mention it.
Your straw-man here is that gay marrage was somehow discussed in my post when it was not. You then defeated the argument I did not make.
Who's talking about sheep? Again, we're talking about legal recognition of the marriage of consenting adults.
That's the same straw-man as above. We are not talking about the legal recognition of the marriage of conseting adults.
The poster above me (who somehow advocated murder and anarchy and got modded 5) said that no one should restrict anyone else at all. I pointed out that such a position was rediculious.
Why yes, yes it is. So why are you trying to turn the discussion away from that point, in practically every other sentence you posted?
Actually, I was the first person to bring that up. The original topic was the outing of petitioners, the response was that they should be outed and shot, and that no one should ever restrict any marriages. I pointed out that "no restrictions at all" was not a good thing, and that (despite that) no one was actually restricting marriages (you can go the the church and marry a goat if you like), what is restricted by law is the recognition of said marriages.
So there are four topics getting juxtiposed together. I was obviously not clear in my initial post in that so many have decided to read into it arguments I did not make.
I think that's the wrong way around; if I'm reading the article correctly, the people in question are those who signed a petition to put Washington's version of Prop. 8 on the ballot, i.e. those who are against civil unions.
Yes, I thinnk someone else mentioned that, though the Slashdot title certainly doesn't read that way.:)
This is an important point. If it were pro-equality signatories who were being "exposed", then I'd be a lot more worried about it. Simply put, giving the radical right easy access to a list of people who are pro-equality would be very, very dangerous, much more so than giving "the gays and their allies" easy access to a list of bigots...
So some harrassment is OK but not other harassment? It would seem to me that the intent was the first issue, and the consequence a second.
I think I feel pretty similar either way. Both sides deserve to be able to petition without drawing harassment.
What's that? Can't find any examples from actual, reputable sources? Well, that's going to be a problem, then, isn't it?
A problem for whom? Since I've not cited "might get them lynched" as a reason to oppose the list, it's a non-issue for me.
Slashdot Mirror
but the pattern in rulings related to "Terry stops" seems to be the other way. Florida recently ruled that a search of a car someone just left was approprite "to ensure officer safety", though a search of a house was not.
I'm trying to figure out how a knife in a car would pose a danger to a police officer when the owner is sitting in the back of a patrol car.
Sadly: the tendancy for decades seems to be away from protection of the citizen's rights.
Like geology or evolution.
You can also see the data on global temperatures, stellar radiation, albeido, and black-body emitters.
By definition: a lay-man is someone who has not studied these things nor tried the (often complex) proofs
When I was born, my foot prints were put on the birth certificate, which is on file, for identification (my social security card validates against it). When I got my state ID, that had my picture. When I got my SBU clearance, my fingerprints and photo went on record.
It seems to me that the line in question is fictitious. The only question is the efficiency of the ID method, and the security of the database.
I have a Sony E-Book reader.
You *can* imbed fonts.
You are not stuck with Sony's proprietary formats (it reads several, including PDF, and freeware programs like calibre' allow conversions).
I would have turned myself in for 1 instance, not 100.
The first is the nature of how sales tax exists. It is a tax on the customer collected by the merchant. That's an idea that works fine with brick-and-morter: but it is very odd to do mail-order.
Also, despite the fact that sales tax is on the customer, and therefore in the customer's state: many states want to charge sales tax when the merchant is in their state as well, potentially double-taxing a sale.
But a bigger problem exists with non-state sales tax. If Pinellas county, or worse Kenneth City, FL pass a 1% sales tax: they don't exactly rush out to tell Amazon. It's simple enough for brick-and-morter to keep track of the taxes where they are, but to keep track of every state, county, and municipality in the US would indeed be burdensome.
We need to go back and redesign, among other things, the entire concept of sales tax to work in the modern economy.
Does it require that we go around the world with a black marker redacting their names from all those printed newspapers from before they serve their time? How would you like to make everyone just "forget" as well?
I suppose I understand Germany's position: they did their time, you aren't allowed to punish them more, but just *change their actual names*. It would be *much* easier than trying to put the genie back in the bottle.
Anyway, back to the story, whenever her computer screws up, I make it a point to note that I'm saving its life. It gets her all riled up, stating she'll just buy a new computer - to which I reply I'll simply buy a new dog when mine gets hurt - or even a new girlfriend when mine is broken.
So how comfortable is that couch?
So Mac copied Xerox Star, and Windows Copied Mac? Do you know who copied whom for OS/2, Amegia Workbench, NeXT, Linux, BeOS, and GeoWorks; all of which have similar WIMP interfaces?
It would be silly to say that any (other than STAR) evolved in a vacuum; but "borrowing ideas" has happened in every direction.
One problem is that you are contradicting yourself.
You tie miserableness to high weight, but then also map out a weight loss as though the weight will always be high.
A 240lb person who moves to 220lb in three months will not spend the next 3 years a 220. His weight will be constantly moving down putting him in that "slim theoretician" range.
Also, presuming he's muscle building (as opposed to aerobics, which I personally think is a bad way to do weight loss), then his fat loss will accellerate over time. The muscle he built in the first 3 months will continue to consume calories over the next three months. The muscle he adds to that in the second three months will also burn calories. Finally, he will be ablt to build faser (till he plateaus) later on because of the improved enduarnce from earlier.
So no. The "feeling misearble" goes away with time, and the results accellerate... though I don't recommend using a scale as your measure early in (got for enduarnce / strength goals).
But you are right in the need to change habits. For some, that happens automatically. When I am doing circuit training, I loose my taste for soad, most candy, and beef... I start craving chicken.
Yes people eat because they are depressed. People also workout because they are depressed. The latter works better and is better for you. Ditto bored.
So you are right: habitual eaters need to retrain those habits for good results. That's much easier to do when you have another outlet.
To put it another way: a dieter looses weight by denying themselves eating. An athlete looses weight by replacing some eating with exercise.
The brain does so many, many different things. Why does it take a study to know that you can be better at some things than others?
I would think, even for the lowest IQs among us, the extreme-examples (such as the archtypical "idiot-savant") would have pounded that home.
When people hold up Bradbury over Vonnegut or Niven over Murakami, you know that they aren't reading anything but pulp.
Actually, I know they are reading Bradbury, Connegut, Niven and Mudakami.
Voicemail is stored by my provider and accessed by me logging in over a service. I don't see what possible difference exists. Does this mean that voicemail is similarly not protected?
some reporter inadvertently compromised the secrecy of the operation. The ATF proceeded even though they knew this, having been informed by one of their own agents inside the Davidians.
Which was rather my point to the earlier poster. It seems rather counter-intuitive that the ATF would choose to open fire on otherwise cooperating people with the news camera behind them.
As for shooting at government law enforcement officers, you have the right to defend yourself against such officers if they are acting illegally. The Davidians were under the impression that they were about to be attacked. The ATF action of rushing the "compound" confirmed this impression.
Actually you have no such right. If the police come rushing into your house you are required to comply.
If you are in reasonable fear of your life, you may have justification for acting in self-defense: but such a fear doesn't play out with the behavior of the Branch Dividians; who at no point took the opportunity to surrender, even much later in front of the world news.
The blame rests far more heavily on the ATF. Like all of our law enforcement agencies, the ATF have become militarized; they see themselves as Rambos, not as peace officers. Both at the local and Federal levels, police agencies are no longer taught that they have a duty to use minimum force, or to de-escalate tense situations. Their training and their equipment is military, and their first impulse is to apply firepower.
There are a number of different points there.
If you look at the history of increasing armament of police: it was in response to being out-armed repeatedly. Even the "overwhelming force" doctrine is about minimizing danger to all.
It's also not true to paint all police agencies with the same brush: and if you truely believe that police 50 or 100 or 150 years ago were more gentle, you've not been paying attention.
All that said: I have great issue with the behavior of many police agencies and their misuse of force. The DEA (and many local DE divisions within the police), and the over use of force at the INS come to mind redily.
I think everyone agrees ATF screwed the pooch here, as did the FBI. That was no reason for an eaarlier poster to exaggerate into hyperbole the error, nor falsely paint the BDs as legal or well behaved.
Oh, and if I ever find out I'm about to be raided: I'll likely drive myself to the nearest police agency and turn myself in. Well, first to my lawyer, then with him to the police.
The first rule of a successful secret trojan program is:
You do not talk about the secret trojan program.
You would if you virtualized those analog parts.
That's what most virtual modeling does, whether it's stress analysis in AutoCAD or reproducing that "tube warmth" from a solid-state amplifier through massaging the wave.
They 5th and 14th ammendments are laws, which were passed by votes of congress and then votes in the sates.
No, they are not "laws" in the usual sense, they are amendments to the Constitution. There's a difference between a law and the Constitution.
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land" - The US Constitution, Article VI
Bluntly, you are just inventing your own definitions of words at this point.
And the 5th and 14th amendment don't grant you those rights, they merely affirm and clarify that you already have those rights. If those amendments were repealed, you'd still have those rights and SCOTUS would still enforce those rights, since the are the underlying basis for the Constitution and assumed to be self-evident and inalienable.
How am I supposed to argue with an unevidenced hypothetical. Certainly SCOTUS did not rule granting rights in ammendments before they were passed, which would include the 14th, 19th (women's sufferage), and the 13th and 15th (barring slavery).
The Constitution is "law" in the sense that it is legal language, but it isn't "laws" in the sense in which laws that Congress passes during its normal operation.
So things passed in special session aren't "law"? Again, you are just inventing terms and distinctions that don't exist.
Furthermore, when voting on constitutional law, people don't vote on their preferences, the vote on conformance with the self-evident and inalienable rights.
Like when they voted in term limits, or voted out alcholol? Prove your claim.
And just like you can turn a democracy into a non-democracy by voting away your own right to vote, you can also turn a democracy into a non-democracy by voting away the self-evident and inalienable rights of others.
Olny if said right is a right to vote.
It's relevant, because (1) it shows you're not along in making that mistake--it's a common mistake, usually linked to some political positions--and (2) you can find plenty of explanations why you're wrong.
Not true explanations however.
Yes, and none of that changes the fact that the US is a representative democracy, just like all other modern democracies.
The term "republic" has two usages, one being the American one ("representative democracy") and the European one ("not a monarchy"). All modern democracies are "republics" according to either usage. And all western republics (including the US) are democracies.
You are inventing words.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic
"The United States of America (commonly referred to as the United States, the U.S., the USA, or America) is a federal constitutional republic" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_states
Your rights to your property are not created by law, you have them. The framers were clear about this, but the 5th and 14th Amendment explicitly clarify this point.
They 5th and 14th ammendments are laws, which were passed by votes of congress and then votes in the sates.
When you cite the constitution, you cite the law.
Look, you can vote on a referendum and you can get laws passed. But you can do that only for laws that are actually compatible with the Constitution, otherwise SCOTUS will just strike down the law.
You are acting as though the Constitution isn't law. You are listing as though it were special, that laws have heiarchies. A county law would also be tossed for conflicting with a state law.
In addition, the Constitution itself can be amended, but that can't be accomplished simply by a majority vote.
So your objection is "simple majority"? It's OK, as long as it's a 2/3rds vote.
yes, democracies can self-destruct through voting
Of course they can. Simply vote away your right to vote. That would take a 2/3rd majority and radification by the states here.
Oh, please, don't start that tired argument again. I mean, seriously, how do you think government in Japan, France, Britain, or Germany actually works? All democracies in the world have representatives these days.
Your dismissal of a simple fact as "tired argument" is irellevent.
The other countries you mentioned use various parlimentary systems, where there's a head of government (a Prime Minister) and a head of state (a president or monarch). There's a parliment, which is elected by party and percentage of vote. In England there is also a house of lords, which is heriditary.
Technically, in England, the monarch appoints the PM, but functionally they always appoint candidate given by the ruling party or coalition.
From there the PM appoints a cabinet. This cabinet basically advises and tubber-stamps the PMs rulings and laws. Stuff ends up in front of parliment, but it's a very different system from ours.
For countries like Germany, where all positions are elected or appointed by elected officials; you have a republic, like to do in the US (the proper name for "Germany" is "the Federal Republic of Germany". Notice "republic" is in the name).
All democracies in the world have representatives these days. US representatives actually have less power than in most other democracies, making the US one of the least "republic" democracies in the world.
On the national level, nothing is done by referrendum or direct vote. I would say our represtitives are the most powerful. In the other countries you mentioned, the PM holds more power then the president (constitutionally) holds here.
You seem to have slept through civics: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." These rights are unalienable and self-evident; they don't derive from voting.
Really? I thought that the declaration of Independance was ratified by a vote of the continental congress. Actually, I'm sure of it.
In the US, your rights aren't given to you by law, you are born with them. You have a right to your property and life, and your neighbor has a right to their property and their life. As long as you aren't in conflict, there is no law that can tell either of you what to do. Any law that tried to restrict your or their rights arbitrarily would likely be unconstitutional.
Property wasn't mentioned in your quote from the Declaration of Independance. It's not mentioned until the Constution (highest *law* of the land) which was also voted on by the continental congress and then ratified (by vote) by the states.
The possible choices that laws and voters can make here are pretty tightly constrained by your property rights and the property rights of your neighbor.
Which property rights exactly? You've not cited any. I guarentee any you do cite will be bills (or ammendments) that were voted into law.
(Maybe what's confusing you about these examples is that any of the choices is a possible choice under some circumstances; however, the choices are not arbitrary.)
The problem being that I am not confused. You are simply ignoring the entire process by which US law is created.
No, it is not. Democracy means that the power of government derives from the consent of the people. It does not mean that the majority can vote on everything.
So as long as the people choose to follow their monarch, it's democracy? Of course not.
Heck, the US isn't even a democracy, it's a republic. Why? Because we don't directly vote on issues, we have representitives. (technically, it's something of a hybrid as we vote on some issues).
By the Constitution and the courts, but not by voting.
How is what is in the constitution determined if not by voting? The courts decide against what? The law? How is the law determined if not by voting?
The basic principle is that you can do with your property whatever you like, unless you infringe on the rights of others in doing so.
How do we know what the rights of other are if not by law, and how are those laws determined if not by voting?
Can I build a wall on my land that blocks my neighbor's view? Can I burn trash on my land that fills my neighbor's air with soot? Where are the cutoffs?
It's fine to expouse a basic tennent: but determinging which tennant will be followed, and the specifics, require a body of laws. These need to be created somehow.
It is definitional to democracy that they are created by the vote of the people.
You may believe or refuse to believe whatever you wish. You've drawn the conclusion because I used the same analogy used by anti-gay-marriage people aruging slippery-slope.
I was not arguing slippery slope. I was arguing that the person I responded to advocated no rules what-so-ever. He also asserted that homicide was an appropriate response.
Personally: I think that the government has no business in "marriage" what-so-ever. I think that a package of joint-ownership / inheritence / power-of-attorney when incapacitated contracts would serve the actual needs and remove all of this silly attempt to tie anything to "morality" in some way, shape or form.
That any arbitray number of compitent adults can enter into such a contract is a no-brainer. It's this silly need by all involved (hetero and homosexuals alike) to have the government validate their "marriage" that stops us from just making a useful and pragmatic solution.
But if we are going to validate heterosexual marriages, then I think we need to validate homosexual and polygamous marriages as well. I don't see any constitutionally (or morally) valid reason to exclude any of those groups from rights granted to another.
Finally: I don't believe I've backed off on anything. If you are seeing something different in later posts than in earlier ones it is in the eye of the reader (and perhaps more detailed typing on my part). I am advocating *more* postitions than I did initially, as I've been called to task on things (like gay marraige) I had not originally commented on at all.
Let's just throw up a bunch of straw men and hope that a sufficient distraction is created.
Although I'm certain you intend this as an accusation against my post, I think you'll find that it is you, not I who is doing so. I will specifically illustrate below.
Might as well get the insult in there too, right? But seriously, what are you talking about? It's idiotic for one adult to marry another adult, and to have that marriage legally recognized?
That voting only for your own rights and restrictions would be silly. One doesn't need laws to coform their own behavior. The whole point of laws is to control everyone.
I should hope so. But the age of consent has nothing to do with what's under discussion - legal recognition of marriage of consenting adults.
The topic discssion is about outing petitioners.
The comment I responded to was one that said no one should ever restrict anyone else from doing anything.
Do you agree that no laws should be passed to restrict anything? You don't (as you don't want 9-year-olds to enter into legal contracts), therefore you agree with me.
I wasn't discussing gay marriage at all. I didn't mention it.
Your straw-man here is that gay marrage was somehow discussed in my post when it was not. You then defeated the argument I did not make.
Who's talking about sheep? Again, we're talking about legal recognition of the marriage of consenting adults.
That's the same straw-man as above. We are not talking about the legal recognition of the marriage of conseting adults.
The poster above me (who somehow advocated murder and anarchy and got modded 5) said that no one should restrict anyone else at all. I pointed out that such a position was rediculious.
Why yes, yes it is. So why are you trying to turn the discussion away from that point, in practically every other sentence you posted?
Actually, I was the first person to bring that up. The original topic was the outing of petitioners, the response was that they should be outed and shot, and that no one should ever restrict any marriages. I pointed out that "no restrictions at all" was not a good thing, and that (despite that) no one was actually restricting marriages (you can go the the church and marry a goat if you like), what is restricted by law is the recognition of said marriages.
So there are four topics getting juxtiposed together. I was obviously not clear in my initial post in that so many have decided to read into it arguments I did not make.
But it does have something to do with it: in a free and just society, a majority cannot simply vote away other people's rights.
Then, in a free and just society, how are individual rights determined?
Do I have the right to set my land on fire? How do I determine if I do or do not?
I think that's the wrong way around; if I'm reading the article correctly, the people in question are those who signed a petition to put Washington's version of Prop. 8 on the ballot, i.e. those who are against civil unions.
Yes, I thinnk someone else mentioned that, though the Slashdot title certainly doesn't read that way. :)
This is an important point. If it were pro-equality signatories who were being "exposed", then I'd be a lot more worried about it. Simply put, giving the radical right easy access to a list of people who are pro-equality would be very, very dangerous, much more so than giving "the gays and their allies" easy access to a list of bigots...
So some harrassment is OK but not other harassment? It would seem to me that the intent was the first issue, and the consequence a second.
I think I feel pretty similar either way. Both sides deserve to be able to petition without drawing harassment.
What's that? Can't find any examples from actual, reputable sources? Well, that's going to be a problem, then, isn't it?
A problem for whom? Since I've not cited "might get them lynched" as a reason to oppose the list, it's a non-issue for me.