It was never about lower wages, it was about fewer regulations and fewer taxes. Wages themselves are a distant third or even further compared to the costs added by government regulations and taxes.
- to the current power brokers, yes. To the people? It would be a liberation to the people.
his ideas about economics are incredibly naive
- no, they would be economically liberating. It is up to the people to build their economy, not up to a government. His ideas are supported by the bestminds in the field of actualeconomics and finance.
It would be much easier if Ron Paul was actually the nominee, the numbers wouldn't be what they are. As a nominee Ron Paul would have the Republicans behind him, they just would have to vote for him regardless of their belief system, because they can't vote for Democrats, and with more exposure more people would even know that he was running.
And I am saying that the system is corrupt in a systemic way, that the reason that a politician can sell out in the first place is because he can take what is not his to take.
A politician can take your individual freedom away from you and that is what he is selling. He is taking your freedoms away from you and he is selling them. The Constitution was supposed to prevent the politicians from doing that exact thing, becoming a Senator, a Congressman, a judge or POTUS wasn't supposed to make that person wealthy! That's because those people weren't supposed to be able to take something from you to sell to those, who have the means to buy.
The system has been hacked, cracked wide open, there are no laws, it has failed and it needs a reset.
You certainly know how to set up an argument in a way that would preclude any on-topic discussion taking place. I believe there was a topic about it on/. today. It's not about 'being rude' though, it's about an ad-hominem. That's what people do when they do not have actual arguments. Your 'arguments' were these: "you are crazy".
Well, there isn't a way to keep a discussion going with those. What do you want as a reply? 'Fuck you'? Well, you got it, but that's about it.
A person with no real power can afford to be honest.
And you are saying:
Gingrich and Pelosi have power. Ron Paul doesn't, and never did.
.
It's not about having power and then selling out, it's about selling out to get power.
Then all of a sudden you get it right:
If he wants it, he will have to sell out.
thus your comments are confusing.
----
However you said all of that as a response to my comment, where I was noting not only that the system decided to list Ron Paul supporters as terrorists but also that the MSM outlets are colluding with the power in this endeavour by blocking all alternatives at the source.
What I am talking about is that there is a systemic failure, where the system is no longer governed by the laws of the land (the Constitution) and all of the institutions that are supposed to protect the law and stop and reverse corruption are themselves taken over by that power system.
The corruption is total. Here are some points to think about:
1. Every politician who gets into the highest offices supports various forms of central planning.
2. Every politician who gets into the highest offices supports reduction in individual liberties and passage of more mandates, more laws, more regulations. From Patriot Act to NDAA, it all gets passed.
3. Every politician who gets into the highest office supports deficit spending and inflation as a way to monetise the debt.
4. Every politician who gets into the highest office supports the status quo with top corporations having top access to the politicians' ears.
5. Every politician who gets into the highest office supports wars, they may support some wars over other wars, but they are similarly uninterested in actually declaring the wars, going all the way to get authorisation from the citizens to run the wars. It's all about executive power.
Summing all of it up, it's easy to argue that whoever comes into power is anti-capitalist, anti-free market, anti-individual liberties, pro-corporation, pro-military, pro-deficit spending and pro-inflation.
How are these people different? There are marginal differences that capture the mass-appeal. However these marginal differences can also be understood as part of the system.
The so called 'left' supports 'gay rights', abortions and employees over over employers and the so called 'right' rejects 'gay rights' and abortions but supports employers over employees. Both 'sides' have similar positions on immigration and militarism though, the differences are really minor.
So what is the TRUTH? The truth is that the Establishment wants more gov't power, more control over production, thus central planning, more militarism as a way to make money and threaten (sorry, 'project power' to) the world, more nationalistic ideas. NDAA and Patriot Act are supported by all sides.
The transition from mostly socialistic to mostly fascist State ideology will come in time, as the dollar becomes weaker and weaker and the Establishment will find it more and more difficult to keep up with just the socialist policies, it will have to invoke more nationalistic policies, more fascist policies.
Any third party ideology is an immediate threat to the Establishment though, so it fights those ideas from all sides.
Read your ballot before you vote. There will be Gary Johnson on it and there is a 1 in 2 chances that there will be Jill Stein on it. I do not recommend going with the Greens of-course.
You think you can take a person who had the same exact principles for 35 years while being on and off in politics, being around the money that goes into the politicians' offices with all the lobbyists and actually corrupt them? So Ron Paul couldn't be bought for 35 years and for some weird reason he'd decide to be bought in the last 4? Why not in the first 35?
2 cases in point: Gingrich and Pelosi. Both became millionaires while in government. They didn't have any other sources of income but government, so how did they get to be multi-millionaires? Did they need to wait to become POTUS to get those millions? Do you understand what I am saying?
As to 'bullet in the head' - that's a risk anybody running for office has to account for.
- that's the kind of nonsense that keeps the 2 party one establishment system going.
Having 'less of a chance to win' by having more truthful exposure in the media, as opposed to not winning as is, with no exposure and with active countermeasures deployed against Ron Paul's campaign? Are you the minister of the Truth department?
No, you are right, Ron Paul was running as a Republican, that's because nobody actually reports on anything related to third parties. Ron Paul had enough following and electoral machinery in place to be able to get the nomination, but in the very first primaries he got screwed by the Establishment (I don't care Republican or Democratic), it was reported that somebody else won, I think it was reported that Romney won, then Santorum and finally, many months later that in fact Ron Paul took all of the delegates in Ohio.
Do you think it would make a huge difference for Ron Paul's chances of getting the nomination of the system wasn't set up to prevent him from getting his actual record out into the public? If the public saw that he won Ohio, would it make more or less likely that he could then win the primaries? Because beating Obama is EASY for Ron Paul, that's the crazy part. All die-hard Republicans would vote for Republican as long as it's not Obama. All libertarians would vote for Ron Paul and many independents and Democrats would also vote for Ron Paul. Obama would be totally screwed and thus Romney was placed onto the ballot by the establishment.
Was Ron Paul really not a third party candidate running as a Republican?
Being a Socialist or a Fascist is a moot point when you talk about a collectivist, the only difference is the extent of the means that they will justify to achieve their goals. W. was as against free market capitalism as the rest of them.
'War on Terror' is a collectivist program.
'No Child Left Behind' is a collectivist program.
The new "Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships" is a collectivist program.
Doubling the budget of "National Science Foundation" is a collectivist move.
"Vision for Space Exploration" was a collectivist idea.
"Healthy Forests Initiative", "Clear Skies Initiative", those are collectivist program.
0% interest rate - this is a collectivist program aimed at increasing power of government by preventing facing the reality and by extending and deepening the problem of deficit and debt.
The fact that there was a combined number of laws known as 'The Bush Tax Cuts' combined with 0% interest rates, bail outs, stimulus packages, all of this only underscores the collectivist principles behind W's government.
"Trade Act of 2002", " Dominican Republicâ"Central America Free Trade Agreement", "Sarbanes-Oxley Act", "Economic Stimulus Act of 2008", "TARP".
All of the above are collectivist programs, none of the above stems from the belief in free market capitalism, all of the above screams: central planning.
Is it socialist? Is it fascist? Is it communist?
What is the difference? The differences are in some implementation details but the premises are all the same: deny capitalism and individualism, deny free markets, respond to everything in one single manner: more government.
When fusion centers did address terrorism, they sometimes did so in ways that infringed on civil liberties. The centers have made headlines for circulating information about Ron Paul supporters, the ACLU, activists on both sides of the abortion debate, war protesters, and advocates of gun rights"
- make a mental note that DHS treats Ron Paul supporters as 'terrorists'. Apparently at the minimum 15% of population of USA are on this terrorist list just according to this little fact.
Also note that Republicans and Democrats always are very capable of 'putting their differences aside' when attacking a third party candidate, especially as it was the case with Ron Paul. The Republican primary debates were televised by various networks, Ron Paul was mostly ignored, in one debate, hosted by CBS, Ron Paul got a total of 89 seconds of speaking time out of 90 minutes. Of-course there were 7 more people on stage, still, even if split evenly everybody could get almost 12 minutes of time. And that's with 'serious' people on stage like Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Gingrich and Santorum.
Is it because Ron Paul is against the federal government telling people how to live their lives? Some will say that leaving things up to States is wrong, they are missing the bigger point, that leaving things like that to federal government is completely wrong and unconstitutional. As to allowing people to deal with these issues on State level does not mean that the State should in fact interfere with people either! At the minimum there should be competition among States for residents.
Aah, DHS, yet another delegation of Congressional power to an unelected office with officials that apparently have unlimited powers, yet another violation of Constitution by the Congress and all other branches of government that do not protect the Constitution and are not stopping this. Yet another manifestation of collectivism, rejection of individual liberties for the purpose of maintaining the planned economy and planned society, which eventually leads to destruction of economy and of society.
It depends on situation. I know of plenty of posters who are rude on constant basis when presented with ideas that they do not personally agree with, most of the time it is simply due to the fact that they have a visceral reaction to a position that they cannot argue against on a logical basis.
Then there are people who are trying to get your attention it seems by using silly language, in their case it is harmless and amusing.
Then there are scenarios where people are not normally rude but do end up using derogatory language when within a conversation thread they are met with comments that lack everything, from logic and rational to common decency, in that case it's just a way to tell somebody to bugger off and I don't see a problem with it.
Of-course the fact that it is an online world and not a face to face conversation that helps many of these scenarios to unfold. In a real face to face situation people are not as quick to jump into attacking personalities because that type of attack can result in physical confrontation, and most people are just not willing to take the risk. I think that people who are generally rude on line without being provoked to it are mostly cowards in real life.
Of-course the real fraud is in making people believe that the fact that they are voting in a democratic elections means that they are preventing a 'bad' outcome and are getting a 'good' outcome instead.
The reality of-course is that in order for democracy to avoid a descend into totalitarianism the individuals have to work hard, they have to be educated, they have to be knowledgeable of facts, they have to be learned of ideas, they have to be independent thinkers.
Unfortunately the democracy boils down to the lowest common denominator, most people are ignorant of facts, ideas, they are victims of propaganda of various types.
This type of democracy, which is really mobocracy, inevitably leads to some form of collectivism. Be it socialism or its next logical step - fascism.
It's a logical step, once the socialists realise that they cannot really apply their ideology for international socialism and thus fascism or corporatism takes place, which is enforced by the nationalist ideas - nazism. Idealistic socialists cannot admit to themselves what their real methods have to be in order to achieve their collectivist goals of central planning, thus they get brushed aside and something much more terrible than them comes alone. From Stalinism to Hitlerism and Maoism, all of these 'isms' have something in common - they hate individualism, capitalism, humanism. They promote the ideas of 'higher good', 'social justice', 'common welfare'. Of-course these must come at the expense of individualism, capitalism, real humanism, real ethics, real morals and be substituted by the fake morals of central authority, for who the ends justify the means, after all, it's "for the common good".
So AFAIC the real fraud is the belief that the democratic system in itself is a meaningful system of establishing 'fairness' or 'higher morality' or whatever you believe is actually achieved by democracy. Democracy is a tool and in the system that denies the rule of law above the government and instead promotes principles of 'fairness' that do not necessarily come out of just rules but are decided on case by case model, then this tool is subverted to serve the ideas of centrally planned, nationalistic, discriminatory, anti-individualistic, anti-human and absolutely anti-capitalist power structure.
I didn't mean "liberal" as in "progressive" or left;
- as far as I took your 'interpretation', I understood the word 'liberal' as a classic liberal, which in today's USA is known as libertarian.
Classic liberal is the opposite of a socialist or a fascist or a nazist or any type of collectivist. Classic liberal actually means an individualist, a humanist, a capitalist, an anti-collectivist that is not driven by the desire to rule anybody but on the contrary, wants everybody to have maximum individual liberties - freedoms.
It's not a "liberal" interpretation, it's a totalitarian interpretation, which is to say that it is a collectivist interpretation.
Of-course what we know about collectivism is that it stems from the ideas of Marx and we know of a number of specific implementations that have been tried so far, which include socialism and fascism.
Ok, it's really not that hard to find actual numbers, here is the data for sexual Harassment Charges EEOC & FEPAs Combined: FY 1997 - FY 2011
That's just the char that represents number of charge receipts filed and resolved under Title VII alleging sexual harassment discrimination.
(The data are compiled by the Office of Research, Information and Planning from data compiled from EEOC's Charge Data System and, from FY 2004 forward, EEOC's Integrated Mission System).
The percentages are given for males out of total of 100%. Average claims by men are about 13-14%, the rest are harassment cases filed by women.
Thus immediately this shows that women file about 950% more claims than men do. Thus it costs more money just to handle sexual harassment cases for women employees.
It is a discussion the forms of collectivism, such as socialism and fascism as well as a discussion of the issue of central planning, which inevitably leads towards slavery, and that's the system that is being pursued by all Western (and many other) governments around the world today.
Careful. You are stepping on many toes here with that type of proclamation. Government being bound by the rule of law, which is the Constitution? That's unpossible.
Yes, and what does the story say? Does it say: commerce should be illegal in case it uses new content-delivery tech, or does it say: new content-delivery tech should be presumed illegal?
Commerce didn't even enter the equation here yet and you are already talking about it. Maybe you should rethink that.
No, it is Congress that is supposed to be bound by the law as described in the Constitution. The authority that Congress does have is specified in article 1 section 8.
Slashdot Mirror
Time certainly flies.
It was never about lower wages, it was about fewer regulations and fewer taxes. Wages themselves are a distant third or even further compared to the costs added by government regulations and taxes.
destructive as hell
- to the current power brokers, yes. To the people? It would be a liberation to the people.
his ideas about economics are incredibly naive
- no, they would be economically liberating. It is up to the people to build their economy, not up to a government. His ideas are supported by the best minds in the field of actual economics and finance.
It would be much easier if Ron Paul was actually the nominee, the numbers wouldn't be what they are. As a nominee Ron Paul would have the Republicans behind him, they just would have to vote for him regardless of their belief system, because they can't vote for Democrats, and with more exposure more people would even know that he was running.
And I am saying that the system is corrupt in a systemic way, that the reason that a politician can sell out in the first place is because he can take what is not his to take.
A politician can take your individual freedom away from you and that is what he is selling. He is taking your freedoms away from you and he is selling them. The Constitution was supposed to prevent the politicians from doing that exact thing, becoming a Senator, a Congressman, a judge or POTUS wasn't supposed to make that person wealthy! That's because those people weren't supposed to be able to take something from you to sell to those, who have the means to buy.
The system has been hacked, cracked wide open, there are no laws, it has failed and it needs a reset.
You certainly know how to set up an argument in a way that would preclude any on-topic discussion taking place. I believe there was a topic about it on /. today. It's not about 'being rude' though, it's about an ad-hominem. That's what people do when they do not have actual arguments. Your 'arguments' were these: "you are crazy".
Well, there isn't a way to keep a discussion going with those. What do you want as a reply? 'Fuck you'? Well, you got it, but that's about it.
You got the cart before the horse. You said:
A person with no real power can afford to be honest.
And you are saying:
Gingrich and Pelosi have power. Ron Paul doesn't, and never did.
.
It's not about having power and then selling out, it's about selling out to get power.
Then all of a sudden you get it right:
If he wants it, he will have to sell out.
thus your comments are confusing.
----
However you said all of that as a response to my comment, where I was noting not only that the system decided to list Ron Paul supporters as terrorists but also that the MSM outlets are colluding with the power in this endeavour by blocking all alternatives at the source.
What I am talking about is that there is a systemic failure, where the system is no longer governed by the laws of the land (the Constitution) and all of the institutions that are supposed to protect the law and stop and reverse corruption are themselves taken over by that power system.
The corruption is total. Here are some points to think about:
1. Every politician who gets into the highest offices supports various forms of central planning.
2. Every politician who gets into the highest offices supports reduction in individual liberties and passage of more mandates, more laws, more regulations. From Patriot Act to NDAA, it all gets passed.
3. Every politician who gets into the highest office supports deficit spending and inflation as a way to monetise the debt.
4. Every politician who gets into the highest office supports the status quo with top corporations having top access to the politicians' ears.
5. Every politician who gets into the highest office supports wars, they may support some wars over other wars, but they are similarly uninterested in actually declaring the wars, going all the way to get authorisation from the citizens to run the wars. It's all about executive power.
Summing all of it up, it's easy to argue that whoever comes into power is anti-capitalist, anti-free market, anti-individual liberties, pro-corporation, pro-military, pro-deficit spending and pro-inflation.
How are these people different? There are marginal differences that capture the mass-appeal. However these marginal differences can also be understood as part of the system.
The so called 'left' supports 'gay rights', abortions and employees over over employers and the so called 'right' rejects 'gay rights' and abortions but supports employers over employees. Both 'sides' have similar positions on immigration and militarism though, the differences are really minor.
So what is the TRUTH? The truth is that the Establishment wants more gov't power, more control over production, thus central planning, more militarism as a way to make money and threaten (sorry, 'project power' to) the world, more nationalistic ideas. NDAA and Patriot Act are supported by all sides.
The transition from mostly socialistic to mostly fascist State ideology will come in time, as the dollar becomes weaker and weaker and the Establishment will find it more and more difficult to keep up with just the socialist policies, it will have to invoke more nationalistic policies, more fascist policies.
Any third party ideology is an immediate threat to the Establishment though, so it fights those ideas from all sides.
You do realize you're responding to a lunatic who rejects civilization as collectivism, with more wingnut lunacy?
Aah, DHS, the paragon of civilisation.
Read your ballot before you vote. There will be Gary Johnson on it and there is a 1 in 2 chances that there will be Jill Stein on it. I do not recommend going with the Greens of-course.
You think you can take a person who had the same exact principles for 35 years while being on and off in politics, being around the money that goes into the politicians' offices with all the lobbyists and actually corrupt them? So Ron Paul couldn't be bought for 35 years and for some weird reason he'd decide to be bought in the last 4? Why not in the first 35?
2 cases in point: Gingrich and Pelosi. Both became millionaires while in government. They didn't have any other sources of income but government, so how did they get to be multi-millionaires? Did they need to wait to become POTUS to get those millions? Do you understand what I am saying?
As to 'bullet in the head' - that's a risk anybody running for office has to account for.
So Paul might even get LESS of a chance to win
- that's the kind of nonsense that keeps the 2 party one establishment system going.
Having 'less of a chance to win' by having more truthful exposure in the media, as opposed to not winning as is, with no exposure and with active countermeasures deployed against Ron Paul's campaign? Are you the minister of the Truth department?
No, you are right, Ron Paul was running as a Republican, that's because nobody actually reports on anything related to third parties. Ron Paul had enough following and electoral machinery in place to be able to get the nomination, but in the very first primaries he got screwed by the Establishment (I don't care Republican or Democratic), it was reported that somebody else won, I think it was reported that Romney won, then Santorum and finally, many months later that in fact Ron Paul took all of the delegates in Ohio.
Do you think it would make a huge difference for Ron Paul's chances of getting the nomination of the system wasn't set up to prevent him from getting his actual record out into the public? If the public saw that he won Ohio, would it make more or less likely that he could then win the primaries? Because beating Obama is EASY for Ron Paul, that's the crazy part. All die-hard Republicans would vote for Republican as long as it's not Obama. All libertarians would vote for Ron Paul and many independents and Democrats would also vote for Ron Paul. Obama would be totally screwed and thus Romney was placed onto the ballot by the establishment.
Was Ron Paul really not a third party candidate running as a Republican?
Yes, W. was a collectivist.
Being a Socialist or a Fascist is a moot point when you talk about a collectivist, the only difference is the extent of the means that they will justify to achieve their goals. W. was as against free market capitalism as the rest of them.
'War on Terror' is a collectivist program.
'No Child Left Behind' is a collectivist program.
The new "Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships" is a collectivist program.
Doubling the budget of "National Science Foundation" is a collectivist move.
"Vision for Space Exploration" was a collectivist idea.
"Healthy Forests Initiative", "Clear Skies Initiative", those are collectivist program.
0% interest rate - this is a collectivist program aimed at increasing power of government by preventing facing the reality and by extending and deepening the problem of deficit and debt.
The fact that there was a combined number of laws known as 'The Bush Tax Cuts' combined with 0% interest rates, bail outs, stimulus packages, all of this only underscores the collectivist principles behind W's government.
"Trade Act of 2002", " Dominican Republicâ"Central America Free Trade Agreement", "Sarbanes-Oxley Act", "Economic Stimulus Act of 2008", "TARP".
All of the above are collectivist programs, none of the above stems from the belief in free market capitalism, all of the above screams: central planning.
Is it socialist? Is it fascist? Is it communist?
What is the difference? The differences are in some implementation details but the premises are all the same: deny capitalism and individualism, deny free markets, respond to everything in one single manner: more government.
When fusion centers did address terrorism, they sometimes did so in ways that infringed on civil liberties. The centers have made headlines for circulating information about Ron Paul supporters, the ACLU, activists on both sides of the abortion debate, war protesters, and advocates of gun rights"
- make a mental note that DHS treats Ron Paul supporters as 'terrorists'. Apparently at the minimum 15% of population of USA are on this terrorist list just according to this little fact.
Also note that Republicans and Democrats always are very capable of 'putting their differences aside' when attacking a third party candidate, especially as it was the case with Ron Paul. The Republican primary debates were televised by various networks, Ron Paul was mostly ignored, in one debate, hosted by CBS, Ron Paul got a total of 89 seconds of speaking time out of 90 minutes. Of-course there were 7 more people on stage, still, even if split evenly everybody could get almost 12 minutes of time. And that's with 'serious' people on stage like Bachmann, Cain, Perry, Gingrich and Santorum.
Why are Ron Paul supporters labelled as terrorists? Is it because Ron Paul wouldn't go to war with Iran?
Is it because Ron Paul wouldn't authorise torture of prisoners?
Is it because Ron Paul is against the federal government telling people how to live their lives? Some will say that leaving things up to States is wrong, they are missing the bigger point, that leaving things like that to federal government is completely wrong and unconstitutional. As to allowing people to deal with these issues on State level does not mean that the State should in fact interfere with people either! At the minimum there should be competition among States for residents.
Is it because Ron Paul wants to audit and eventually get rid of the Federal reserve? The Fed is the actual main tool of destruction of US economy with its inflationary policy.
Is it because Ron Paul actually wants to balance the budget and start working out the problem of debt? Yes, it means cutting all sorts of programs and departments, but a government that you cannot afford will destroy you.
Is it because Ron Paul is against bail outs, stimulus and any form of welfare including corporate welfare?
Is it because Ron Paul is honest about Medicare and SS being bankrupt? He offers a transition period off these programs by means testing people and cutting military spending, foreign aid spending and various illegal domestic programs first that are not Medicare and SS, and by allowing people to opt out of the system and save their money for themselves to take care of themselves.
Is it because Ron Paul is in general against government intervention into the economy?
----
Of-course no MSM outlet is reporting on Gary Johnson being in the race, being on 47 ballots (and Washington DC) out of 50 in USA. He is not on all 50 yet because of lawsuits by Romney campaign. Gary Johnson is trying to prevent the debate between Romney and Obama with a court order or to be in that debate. Gary Johnson is also trying to get documents released that would show whether th
Aah, DHS, yet another delegation of Congressional power to an unelected office with officials that apparently have unlimited powers, yet another violation of Constitution by the Congress and all other branches of government that do not protect the Constitution and are not stopping this. Yet another manifestation of collectivism, rejection of individual liberties for the purpose of maintaining the planned economy and planned society, which eventually leads to destruction of economy and of society.
It depends on situation. I know of plenty of posters who are rude on constant basis when presented with ideas that they do not personally agree with, most of the time it is simply due to the fact that they have a visceral reaction to a position that they cannot argue against on a logical basis.
Then there are people who are trying to get your attention it seems by using silly language, in their case it is harmless and amusing.
Then there are scenarios where people are not normally rude but do end up using derogatory language when within a conversation thread they are met with comments that lack everything, from logic and rational to common decency, in that case it's just a way to tell somebody to bugger off and I don't see a problem with it.
Of-course the fact that it is an online world and not a face to face conversation that helps many of these scenarios to unfold. In a real face to face situation people are not as quick to jump into attacking personalities because that type of attack can result in physical confrontation, and most people are just not willing to take the risk. I think that people who are generally rude on line without being provoked to it are mostly cowards in real life.
Of-course the real fraud is in making people believe that the fact that they are voting in a democratic elections means that they are preventing a 'bad' outcome and are getting a 'good' outcome instead.
The reality of-course is that in order for democracy to avoid a descend into totalitarianism the individuals have to work hard, they have to be educated, they have to be knowledgeable of facts, they have to be learned of ideas, they have to be independent thinkers.
Unfortunately the democracy boils down to the lowest common denominator, most people are ignorant of facts, ideas, they are victims of propaganda of various types.
This type of democracy, which is really mobocracy, inevitably leads to some form of collectivism. Be it socialism or its next logical step - fascism.
It's a logical step, once the socialists realise that they cannot really apply their ideology for international socialism and thus fascism or corporatism takes place, which is enforced by the nationalist ideas - nazism. Idealistic socialists cannot admit to themselves what their real methods have to be in order to achieve their collectivist goals of central planning, thus they get brushed aside and something much more terrible than them comes alone. From Stalinism to Hitlerism and Maoism, all of these 'isms' have something in common - they hate individualism, capitalism, humanism. They promote the ideas of 'higher good', 'social justice', 'common welfare'. Of-course these must come at the expense of individualism, capitalism, real humanism, real ethics, real morals and be substituted by the fake morals of central authority, for who the ends justify the means, after all, it's "for the common good".
So AFAIC the real fraud is the belief that the democratic system in itself is a meaningful system of establishing 'fairness' or 'higher morality' or whatever you believe is actually achieved by democracy. Democracy is a tool and in the system that denies the rule of law above the government and instead promotes principles of 'fairness' that do not necessarily come out of just rules but are decided on case by case model, then this tool is subverted to serve the ideas of centrally planned, nationalistic, discriminatory, anti-individualistic, anti-human and absolutely anti-capitalist power structure.
I didn't mean "liberal" as in "progressive" or left;
- as far as I took your 'interpretation', I understood the word 'liberal' as a classic liberal, which in today's USA is known as libertarian.
Classic liberal is the opposite of a socialist or a fascist or a nazist or any type of collectivist. Classic liberal actually means an individualist, a humanist, a capitalist, an anti-collectivist that is not driven by the desire to rule anybody but on the contrary, wants everybody to have maximum individual liberties - freedoms.
It's not a "liberal" interpretation, it's a totalitarian interpretation, which is to say that it is a collectivist interpretation.
Of-course what we know about collectivism is that it stems from the ideas of Marx and we know of a number of specific implementations that have been tried so far, which include socialism and fascism.
Ok, it's really not that hard to find actual numbers, here is the data for sexual Harassment Charges EEOC & FEPAs Combined: FY 1997 - FY 2011
That's just the char that represents number of charge receipts filed and resolved under Title VII alleging sexual harassment discrimination.
(The data are compiled by the Office of Research, Information and Planning from data compiled from EEOC's Charge Data System and, from FY 2004 forward, EEOC's Integrated Mission System).
The percentages are given for males out of total of 100%. Average claims by men are about 13-14%, the rest are harassment cases filed by women.
Thus immediately this shows that women file about 950% more claims than men do. Thus it costs more money just to handle sexual harassment cases for women employees.
You should read this book, The Road to Serfdom.
It is a discussion the forms of collectivism, such as socialism and fascism as well as a discussion of the issue of central planning, which inevitably leads towards slavery, and that's the system that is being pursued by all Western (and many other) governments around the world today.
Careful. You are stepping on many toes here with that type of proclamation. Government being bound by the rule of law, which is the Constitution? That's unpossible.
Yes, and what does the story say? Does it say: commerce should be illegal in case it uses new content-delivery tech, or does it say: new content-delivery tech should be presumed illegal?
Commerce didn't even enter the equation here yet and you are already talking about it. Maybe you should rethink that.
No, it is Congress that is supposed to be bound by the law as described in the Constitution. The authority that Congress does have is specified in article 1 section 8.
Congress has no Constitutional authority to authorise or not authorise technology for its use.