the problem is gov't thinks it is business, after all, it passes all these regulations, creates all these unelected offices that create more regulations, taxes business and individual income and talks about 'creating jobs'.
SEC. 3. ENHANCING ENFORCEMENT AGAINST ROGUE WEBSITES OPERATED AND REGISTERED OVERSEAS.
(a) COMMENCEMENT OF AN ACTION.â" (1) IN PERSONAM.â"The Attorney General may commence an in personam action againstâ"
7 (A) a registrant of a nondomestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to in-fringing activities; or 10 (B) an owner or operator of an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities accessed through a nondomestic domain name.
13 (2) IN REM.â"If through due diligence the At-torney General is unable to find a person described in subparagraphs (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), or no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States, the Attorney General may commence an in rem action against a non- domestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities.
- etc.etc.etc.
I love it. Not only this bill (like EVERY government bill) is going to destroy more freedoms and jobs everywhere, I just LOVE IT how they call anything they don't like 'ROGUE' nowadays.
It's only one step away from being labeled a TERRORIST and then of-course, what are all those unmanned killer drones for, right?
Yeah, all those call centers, all the automated voice systems, the grocery baggers, the gas station attendants, students, who could otherwise be apprentices and work for a couple of bucks learning something useful and not collecting mortgage payments without a house to show for it.
There are over 60 million unemployed and underemployed people in USA.
What does it matter how individuals prosper at all if they have no liberties protected and instead they have gov't using violence to enslave them, which is especially sinister when it is done under the guise of 'helping the society'?
Again and again, society absolutely does not matter if it destroys the rights of individuals. Prosperity follows the individual rights, into the garbage. There can be no prosperity, especially in a longer than the short run, when individual rights are destroyed.
There can be no tolerance for any amount of individual rights being destroyed.
Once the society takes it upon itself to remove one liberty, the other liberties will follow, and it's not clear at all that liberty of having control over one's own body is actually less important than private property. Once one liberty goes, all of them are in line to be taken over.
This is happening right now, this has been going on since early last century, it's been almost 100 years and nearly all liberties have been wiped out.
But don't bother, I am going to sleep, it's really late night, and I have done what I needed to do for today.
Society does not matter if individual rights are trampled over. Society only means anything if liberties of individuals in it are preserved.
Society is only an attribute of a collection of individuals, individuals are the only parts of society that matter. Without individuals there is no society. Without individual rights there is no society that is worth any preservation, in fact without individual rights the society loses its right to exist, because it tramples over the only rights that do matter.
What are the consequences of somebody spreading a deadly disease? The person is likely dead. If he/she is not, then it is up to the criminal code to prove that this person was spreading the disease on purpose. Then there is civil court.
As to how a sick individual should be treated - he should have his medical insurance and he should be treated by a private hospital that knows how to deal with infectious diseases.
AGAIN: there is no meaning in a society if the individual lose their right in it. A society that destroys individuals should suffer the same fate and be destroyed. Our lives only matter to us and people we know, the rest is irrelevant. We are born and die alone in ourselves, and before a person is born and after he dies to him the society only matters while he is alive. If during his life the society takes away his rights, there is no point in that society. One individual without rights means all (almost all) individuals without rights, and just like life without liberties means nothing, society that destroys liberties of individuals means nothing.
The problem is that people don't understand that individual liberties are more important than societies. Once they lose this understanding, then there is no longer a society worth having.
But my post is not promoting people not getting vaccinations, my point is that gov't force must not be used to do this.
1. It is a matter of individual liberties. 2. Where did I promote people not getting vaccinated? I am against a force of gov't used against liberties of individuals, not against people getting vaccinated. However an individual must have the liberty not to be subjected to gov't force in such matters.
3. There is no point in having any society and any humanity if the humanity decides that it is above the individual and loses sight of what is important - separate live, not a 'hive' or a herd.
No, it's the society that is meaningless if it oversteps the rights of an individual and it is the society that must suffer the consequences of individuals restructuring it, taking it apart and fixing it, making sure society is there to protect individual rights, not to trample them.
You may be right that if a person is sick he can then be incarcerated under the law, whatever, I already wrote about the criminal and civil consequences that can follow.
But this does not mean that individuals must be forced by society to give up their rights to their own lives, liberty, pursuit of happiness, property, etc., based on society's wrong idea that it can dictate to individuals what they must do with their bodies.
As I said, you don't understand my arguments. It's about vaccination, it's about individuals having rights to their own lives, freedoms and liberties and property.
Further, the irony is thick enough to cut with a knife, some of these men owned slaves, and yet still penned the phrase about the inalienable nature of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
- sure, some of them owned slaves. Some of them beat their wives too, doesn't mean they can't write a correct document about the inalienable rights of people. Maybe some of them behaved in a way that even showed hypocrisy, but this only underlines how self evident the truths are, that even hypocrites can understand and agree on what is right (even if their actions contradict this).
You certainly did. Refusing to take basic steps, like vaccination, to reduce the possibility that you will become a carrier for an infectious disease is tantamount to claiming you have the right to spread disease.
- nonsense.
In fact it is important to understand that the principle of individual rights to be able to do with ones body as one sees fit, rather than having this 'society' impose its will upon the individual, that this principle does not prevent individuals from getting their vaccinations.
However whether the individuals get their vaccines or not, does not in any way give them the right to spread disease and others can definitely argue that people without vaccines shouldn't be entering some private property.
If one gets a disease and spreads it, he can be held accountable (and people often are) criminally and in civil court. The right to ones own body does not imply a right to do harm to others, which you are implying.
Again: people's bodies belong to them and nobody else, and if you want to impose this kind of gov't upon others, I believe there will be violence directed against your attempts, fully justified violence.
The rights are only a meaningful concept when talking about a relationship between individual and the collective - the government. All this means is that the government by the force of majority shouldn't be stepping over the individual. No DNA, no natural forces of any kind, purely the fact that people are created equal (even if it's not really equal from POV of DNA, upbringing, environment or education). The real test is in the desire to fight for this equality, and many people have fought for it in wars and died, so unless we admit that all of the sacrifice is for absolutely nothing and unless we are forever again unwilling to do the same, then we have to admit that there is a good idea there, that the gov't shouldn't be stepping over our rights. Gov't should be only allowed some enumerated powers and only in order to enforce protection of these very rights.
You can't even understand my abbreviations, why are you trying to impose your views upon me?
AFAIC - As Far As I'm Concerned. It's not 'as far as I can tell' or 'as far as I know'.
---
The point is that vaccines only work adequately if everyone is vaccinated. etc.etc.
- again, you are making a point of convenience. Yeah, it would be convenient if many or most people got vaccinated. No, you shouldn't be able to force people into this, it's not your body to vaccinate, it's a human, separate from you, an individual, who you have no claim upon.
You don't get the right to take dead people's organs to save other people. You don't get a right to decide whether a woman gets an abortion, it's her choice.
You do not get a right to tell a person what he or she should eat or drink and what medications they should use.
If you think you get a right to that, then you want a society that many other individuals are not interested in. You want a totalitarian, dictatorial, authoritative command economy type of a society, and I think you do, based on your other comments, but you and I are going to be at odds on this.
Do you agree? I am not going to change my mind on this, it's impossible for you to change my mind on ideas that concern individual liberties and choices. I hope more people see it my way, that's all I can say.
As to convincing people that it is in their best interest to have more individuality, less government in their lives - the best thing that happened so far was government itself, convincing the people in this very fact.
It's not going to have to be me convincing people, it's going to be government itself convincing people on this. With every failure that it causes, with economic and societal failures, with failure to promote peaceful coexistence and not war.
You believe my ideas are similar to "not a society, but a bunch of lone wolves meeting for mating season", I believe that what you consider to be a society is in reality a soul crashing (coming from an atheist, btw), individuality destroying machine, that is design to enslave the individual for the benefit of a few people, who stand to gain from this personally, and they are using the ignorance of the masses to their advantage.
I actually thing the Internet is a good tool to promote the views like mine - of individuals who do not fall in line the way you prefer.
It absolutely belongs. It sets the precedent that the government has the authority to mandate your behavior. If you accept this much, then we merely argue about where the extent of that authority is.
- no it doesn't. None of the rights to property, pursuit of happiness, life, liberty and all other inalienable rights belong in that list together with all that other completely unauthorized to the gov't nonsense that you put there in the list.
No, someone has to first define those rights, and to then declare them to be "inalienable", which is to say grant them.
- not what the declaration says
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. â" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, â" That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
....
And if a minority of people believe that they have the "right" to spread disease to others, they may find that the majority will attempt to restrict their ability to do so.
- plenty of straw went into this sentence.
In fact I never said that people have a RIGHT to spread disease to others.
So you need to go back and reread this thread, because it's quite a statement you are making there.
The problem is about costs to the society. Why should the insurance pool that I pay into cover the costs of someone getting severely injured due to not wearing seat belts?
- well that's an excellent point against compulsory public insurance / health care system, isn't it?
AFAIC nobody is preventing you from getting a vaccine. I am all for people making their choices, once the gov't gets into this picture, making choices for people and forcing them into those so called 'choices', then the point of that society is lost. People fought wars and died for freedoms and liberties, they didn't run away from those fights, and many were killed. People get killed by disease and they may choose to get vaccinated simply based on the fact that their survival rate will be higher. However once this 'society' steps all over the right of the individual to make their own choices about their body, that society is dead already.
I am an atheist, but I am with the Constitutionalists on this one (though the document that says it is Declaration of Independence actually): your creator, whatever you take it to be, and it's not your government and it's not your parents. AFAIC it's just a given.
The balance between rights of individuals is decided between the individual in courts.
There is NO BALANCE when it's so called 'society' imposing it's mandates upon individuals and call it 'balance'.
People do not have absolute rights. I can't start a blog slandering people and showing them in photoshopped pornographic photos and then claim it's my choice to do this.
- sure you can. In fact this is not even 'slandering' unless you are also implying those are real pictures.
What right does an individual have to go Typhoid Mary on people?
- well, if the individual is doing something that hurts others, that's what criminal code is for (and civil court as well).
The problem is, *any* place could be an exposure zone. Walking past an infected person on the sidewalk could cause an infection. Should all parents and their kids be quarantined until the child is old enough to have gotten all of his/her shots? After all, taking your kid out anywhere could expose them. The parent going out and bringing something in could bring in germs.
- I am not interested in any of this 'think of the children' nonsense. I really don't care how you ensure that your children specifically do not get infected, but it's your responsibility to ensure it.
Of-course if somebody is knowingly exposes people to threat of some bad disease, they are liable under criminal and civil law for punishment and damages.
Beyond that, imposing your will via gov't mandates upon individual choices of how to treat their own bodies should be met with violent resistance (and it is.)
Slashdot Mirror
the problem is gov't thinks it is business, after all, it passes all these regulations, creates all these unelected offices that create more regulations, taxes business and individual income and talks about 'creating jobs'.
In reality it can only destroy jobs, and here is another example (middle of this audio is a business lady talking her experience having her business disrupted by gov't.)
How about gov't gets out of business and then business will get out of government?
beautiful, and has nothing to do with anything. Good job. Carry on.
Technically Congressmen are also Senators. I take exception with something though, no lobbyist goes to Ron Paul, there is no reason, it's useless.
SEC. 3.
ENHANCING ENFORCEMENT AGAINST ROGUE WEBSITES OPERATED AND REGISTERED OVERSEAS.
(a) COMMENCEMENT OF AN ACTION.â"
(1) IN
PERSONAM.â"The Attorney General may commence an in personam action againstâ"
7 (A) a registrant of a nondomestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to in-fringing activities; or
10 (B) an owner or operator of an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities accessed through a nondomestic domain name.
13 (2) IN REM.â"If through due diligence the At-torney General is unable to find a person described in subparagraphs (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), or no such person found has an address within a judicial district of the United States, the Attorney General may commence an in rem action against a non- domestic domain name used by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities.
- etc.etc.etc.
I love it. Not only this bill (like EVERY government bill) is going to destroy more freedoms and jobs everywhere, I just LOVE IT how they call anything they don't like 'ROGUE' nowadays.
It's only one step away from being labeled a TERRORIST and then of-course, what are all those unmanned killer drones for, right?
The US government just murdered a 16 year old US citizen - the son of Anwar Awlaki, killed just a little while ago by another drone strike.
Be warned, the USA has long ceased to be a nation of laws, it is now a nation of terrorists.
Yeah, all those call centers, all the automated voice systems, the grocery baggers, the gas station attendants, students, who could otherwise be apprentices and work for a couple of bucks learning something useful and not collecting mortgage payments without a house to show for it.
There are over 60 million unemployed and underemployed people in USA.
What does it matter how individuals prosper at all if they have no liberties protected and instead they have gov't using violence to enslave them, which is especially sinister when it is done under the guise of 'helping the society'?
Again and again, society absolutely does not matter if it destroys the rights of individuals. Prosperity follows the individual rights, into the garbage. There can be no prosperity, especially in a longer than the short run, when individual rights are destroyed.
There can be no tolerance for any amount of individual rights being destroyed.
Once the society takes it upon itself to remove one liberty, the other liberties will follow, and it's not clear at all that liberty of having control over one's own body is actually less important than private property. Once one liberty goes, all of them are in line to be taken over.
This is happening right now, this has been going on since early last century, it's been almost 100 years and nearly all liberties have been wiped out.
But don't bother, I am going to sleep, it's really late night, and I have done what I needed to do for today.
If you are willing to forgo your liberties for the sake of convenience you won't have any liberties.
You don't like this position, I wonder what your position on abortion is.
If you murder somebody, that's what criminal code is for (and relatives in some cases, especially if they care.)
Society does not matter if individual rights are trampled over. Society only means anything if liberties of individuals in it are preserved.
Society is only an attribute of a collection of individuals, individuals are the only parts of society that matter. Without individuals there is no society. Without individual rights there is no society that is worth any preservation, in fact without individual rights the society loses its right to exist, because it tramples over the only rights that do matter.
What are the consequences of somebody spreading a deadly disease? The person is likely dead. If he/she is not, then it is up to the criminal code to prove that this person was spreading the disease on purpose. Then there is civil court.
As to how a sick individual should be treated - he should have his medical insurance and he should be treated by a private hospital that knows how to deal with infectious diseases.
AGAIN: there is no meaning in a society if the individual lose their right in it. A society that destroys individuals should suffer the same fate and be destroyed. Our lives only matter to us and people we know, the rest is irrelevant. We are born and die alone in ourselves, and before a person is born and after he dies to him the society only matters while he is alive. If during his life the society takes away his rights, there is no point in that society. One individual without rights means all (almost all) individuals without rights, and just like life without liberties means nothing, society that destroys liberties of individuals means nothing.
The problem is that people don't understand that individual liberties are more important than societies. Once they lose this understanding, then there is no longer a society worth having.
But my post is not promoting people not getting vaccinations, my point is that gov't force must not be used to do this.
1. It is a matter of individual liberties.
2. Where did I promote people not getting vaccinated? I am against a force of gov't used against liberties of individuals, not against people getting vaccinated. However an individual must have the liberty not to be subjected to gov't force in such matters.
3. There is no point in having any society and any humanity if the humanity decides that it is above the individual and loses sight of what is important - separate live, not a 'hive' or a herd.
Kill? If they do so, they should be tried for murder.
Gov't can't kill anybody either, not without a law that allows death penalty and not without a law that requires it.
However I don't see why a sick person cannot be treated the way we treat sick people without criminalizing them, no matter how much you want that.
No, it's the society that is meaningless if it oversteps the rights of an individual and it is the society that must suffer the consequences of individuals restructuring it, taking it apart and fixing it, making sure society is there to protect individual rights, not to trample them.
You may be right that if a person is sick he can then be incarcerated under the law, whatever, I already wrote about the criminal and civil consequences that can follow.
But this does not mean that individuals must be forced by society to give up their rights to their own lives, liberty, pursuit of happiness, property, etc., based on society's wrong idea that it can dictate to individuals what they must do with their bodies.
As I said, you don't understand my arguments. It's about vaccination, it's about individuals having rights to their own lives, freedoms and liberties and property.
You take it as an argument against vaccination.
Your argument has nothing to do with my argument.
My argument is that you are the only one who has the right to decide over your own vaccination (and your child's).
Your argument is that other people have the right to protect themselves from you, if you are sick.
---
Further, the irony is thick enough to cut with a knife, some of these men owned slaves, and yet still penned the phrase about the inalienable nature of liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
- sure, some of them owned slaves. Some of them beat their wives too, doesn't mean they can't write a correct document about the inalienable rights of people. Maybe some of them behaved in a way that even showed hypocrisy, but this only underlines how self evident the truths are, that even hypocrites can understand and agree on what is right (even if their actions contradict this).
You certainly did. Refusing to take basic steps, like vaccination, to reduce the possibility that you will become a carrier for an infectious disease is tantamount to claiming you have the right to spread disease.
- nonsense.
In fact it is important to understand that the principle of individual rights to be able to do with ones body as one sees fit, rather than having this 'society' impose its will upon the individual, that this principle does not prevent individuals from getting their vaccinations.
However whether the individuals get their vaccines or not, does not in any way give them the right to spread disease and others can definitely argue that people without vaccines shouldn't be entering some private property.
If one gets a disease and spreads it, he can be held accountable (and people often are) criminally and in civil court. The right to ones own body does not imply a right to do harm to others, which you are implying.
Again: people's bodies belong to them and nobody else, and if you want to impose this kind of gov't upon others, I believe there will be violence directed against your attempts, fully justified violence.
The rights are only a meaningful concept when talking about a relationship between individual and the collective - the government. All this means is that the government by the force of majority shouldn't be stepping over the individual. No DNA, no natural forces of any kind, purely the fact that people are created equal (even if it's not really equal from POV of DNA, upbringing, environment or education). The real test is in the desire to fight for this equality, and many people have fought for it in wars and died, so unless we admit that all of the sacrifice is for absolutely nothing and unless we are forever again unwilling to do the same, then we have to admit that there is a good idea there, that the gov't shouldn't be stepping over our rights. Gov't should be only allowed some enumerated powers and only in order to enforce protection of these very rights.
You can't even understand my abbreviations, why are you trying to impose your views upon me?
AFAIC - As Far As I'm Concerned. It's not 'as far as I can tell' or 'as far as I know'.
---
The point is that vaccines only work adequately if everyone is vaccinated. etc.etc.
- again, you are making a point of convenience. Yeah, it would be convenient if many or most people got vaccinated. No, you shouldn't be able to force people into this, it's not your body to vaccinate, it's a human, separate from you, an individual, who you have no claim upon.
You don't get the right to take dead people's organs to save other people. You don't get a right to decide whether a woman gets an abortion, it's her choice.
You do not get a right to tell a person what he or she should eat or drink and what medications they should use.
If you think you get a right to that, then you want a society that many other individuals are not interested in. You want a totalitarian, dictatorial, authoritative command economy type of a society, and I think you do, based on your other comments, but you and I are going to be at odds on this.
Do you agree? I am not going to change my mind on this, it's impossible for you to change my mind on ideas that concern individual liberties and choices. I hope more people see it my way, that's all I can say.
As to convincing people that it is in their best interest to have more individuality, less government in their lives - the best thing that happened so far was government itself, convincing the people in this very fact.
It's not going to have to be me convincing people, it's going to be government itself convincing people on this. With every failure that it causes, with economic and societal failures, with failure to promote peaceful coexistence and not war.
You believe my ideas are similar to "not a society, but a bunch of lone wolves meeting for mating season", I believe that what you consider to be a society is in reality a soul crashing (coming from an atheist, btw), individuality destroying machine, that is design to enslave the individual for the benefit of a few people, who stand to gain from this personally, and they are using the ignorance of the masses to their advantage.
I actually thing the Internet is a good tool to promote the views like mine - of individuals who do not fall in line the way you prefer.
It absolutely belongs. It sets the precedent that the government has the authority to mandate your behavior. If you accept this much, then we merely argue about where the extent of that authority is.
- no it doesn't. None of the rights to property, pursuit of happiness, life, liberty and all other inalienable rights belong in that list together with all that other completely unauthorized to the gov't nonsense that you put there in the list.
No, someone has to first define those rights, and to then declare them to be "inalienable", which is to say grant them.
- not what the declaration says
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. â" That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, â" That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
....
And if a minority of people believe that they have the "right" to spread disease to others, they may find that the majority will attempt to restrict their ability to do so.
- plenty of straw went into this sentence.
In fact I never said that people have a RIGHT to spread disease to others.
So you need to go back and reread this thread, because it's quite a statement you are making there.
The problem is about costs to the society. Why should the insurance pool that I pay into cover the costs of someone getting severely injured due to not wearing seat belts?
- well that's an excellent point against compulsory public insurance / health care system, isn't it?
Yes, I am against public health care as well, I have good reasons (and I am against SS also, just in case you wonder).
Irrelevant point, made for convenience.
AFAIC nobody is preventing you from getting a vaccine. I am all for people making their choices, once the gov't gets into this picture, making choices for people and forcing them into those so called 'choices', then the point of that society is lost. People fought wars and died for freedoms and liberties, they didn't run away from those fights, and many were killed. People get killed by disease and they may choose to get vaccinated simply based on the fact that their survival rate will be higher. However once this 'society' steps all over the right of the individual to make their own choices about their body, that society is dead already.
I am an atheist, but I am with the Constitutionalists on this one (though the document that says it is Declaration of Independence actually): your creator, whatever you take it to be, and it's not your government and it's not your parents. AFAIC it's just a given.
The balance between rights of individuals is decided between the individual in courts.
There is NO BALANCE when it's so called 'society' imposing it's mandates upon individuals and call it 'balance'.
People do not have absolute rights. I can't start a blog slandering people and showing them in photoshopped pornographic photos and then claim it's my choice to do this.
- sure you can. In fact this is not even 'slandering' unless you are also implying those are real pictures.
What right does an individual have to go Typhoid Mary on people?
- well, if the individual is doing something that hurts others, that's what criminal code is for (and civil court as well).
The problem is, *any* place could be an exposure zone. Walking past an infected person on the sidewalk could cause an infection. Should all parents and their kids be quarantined until the child is old enough to have gotten all of his/her shots? After all, taking your kid out anywhere could expose them. The parent going out and bringing something in could bring in germs.
- I am not interested in any of this 'think of the children' nonsense. I really don't care how you ensure that your children specifically do not get infected, but it's your responsibility to ensure it.
Of-course if somebody is knowingly exposes people to threat of some bad disease, they are liable under criminal and civil law for punishment and damages.
Beyond that, imposing your will via gov't mandates upon individual choices of how to treat their own bodies should be met with violent resistance (and it is.)