The way the discussion was going, I inferred that the talking points of workweeks and vacation time was in comparison to something. Also, the very definition of universal healthcare means only once choice... you have to have it. Strangely enough, not everybody wants it.
As for the commerce clause, unless I live in one state and work in another, I don't think the clause has any right to be invoked. As for amending the Constitution, it's supposed to be hard. It's supposed to take several super majorities. But WTH would we want to give the gov't MORE power as it always seems to abuse the power and authority it has already?
>>I quite fail to see how a 35 hour workweek or 6 weeks of paid leave (not to mention universal healthcare and good consumer protection) are bad things.
Because it removes choice. And technically, the 10th Amendment of the US Const. forbids the federal gov't from monkeying with them.
It's not wrong. It's just that nobody ever likes the guy on top. Why do you think so many people hate the Yankees and Patriots? Some of us like to coat our jealousy in socialist doublespeak, but that's all it really ever is: you have something I want and I'm too stupid and/or lazy to get it myself.
Or my oppressed masses may find out how good a democratic style gov't really is, and I'll have to work for a living.
But, in the online world, what consists of "doing business?"
If neither Google nor Doubleclick have offices in the EU, and someone from the EU visits a website in the USA that has Google ads and Doubleclick adds, which set of laws apply?
>> The EU enforces a common market, other treaties are mostly meaningless word candy.
Ahh, I see where I was mistaken. I had thought the treaties all had more teeth than that.
As for the Nazism, that's the only type of European free speech-related news that seems to make it over here, even on the BBC websites and Google news.
Of course, when it comes to cultural imperialism, the US is screwed no matter what. We're either trying to impose our will on others or we're indifferent. There doesn't seem to be a happy medium for us.
Though on behalf of all geeks everywhere, I'd like to thank a Finn for Linus:-)
I didn't say all of Europe, I said all the countries on the list. Big difference, unless you're saying some countries are more European than others. And no, I didn't bother reading the speech laws for each of the countries on said list. But I don't go around reading the laws for all 50 states, either:-). Heck, what's a felony in MA is 100% legal in VT, and they frickin' border each other. Isn't Germany extra ban happy anwyay?
Heck, if it's banned in one, how is that a good thing? Doesn't the EU have treaties that try to "normalize" the speech laws amongst its members? I know that Nazi memorabilia is not legal in Germany. How is that good for free speech? Banning things never does anyone any good. It just pushes the crap underground, where it festers, then explodes at inopportune times. Of course, I happen to be a big fan of unfettered free speech, but most people think that means no consequences.
It's also interesting that you're saying the US is anything like the third world hellholes in South America. I doubt you'd like me to equate the backwater country of the Vatican with Finland, would you?:-P
And yet, in all those countries in Europe, isn't it against the law to print that you don't think the Nazis killed a ton of Jewish people? How is that free press? Shouldn't you be able to make an idiot out of yourself?
Actually, the Constitution for my state guarantees the right of armed revolution.
The Federal Constitution is supposed to be a limit on the powers of the government. It doesn't grant any rights (we already had them), it's supposed to be a framework for limited government that Lincoln started to kill and FDR finished.
Interestingly enough, MS is also criticized for following American law when they earn as much money for their shareholders as possible (fiduciary duty).
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but we actually get to vote for our head of state :-P
Besides, the Constitution requires each state do it Their Way. And nobody seems to want to change the system.
Easy. Mass sucks. The cool states have roadside liquor stores that help pay for education on the backs of our neighboring states' vices.
Weren't Israel's radicals elected? And isn't Iran bound by the NPT while Israel is not?
All those other countries signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel did not. Can't say I really blame them, either.
The way the discussion was going, I inferred that the talking points of workweeks and vacation time was in comparison to something. Also, the very definition of universal healthcare means only once choice... you have to have it. Strangely enough, not everybody wants it.
As for the commerce clause, unless I live in one state and work in another, I don't think the clause has any right to be invoked. As for amending the Constitution, it's supposed to be hard. It's supposed to take several super majorities. But WTH would we want to give the gov't MORE power as it always seems to abuse the power and authority it has already?
>>I quite fail to see how a 35 hour workweek or 6 weeks of paid leave (not to mention universal healthcare and good consumer protection) are bad things.
Because it removes choice. And technically, the 10th Amendment of the US Const. forbids the federal gov't from monkeying with them.
Oh, I'd agree with that.
But what about things like Universal Healthcare?
So if I choose to disagree with you, wouldn't one of us have to force our opinion on the other?
Me, neither, but I live in NH. Lots of other people can't stand them. Especially if that Pats steamrolled their team.
It's not wrong. It's just that nobody ever likes the guy on top. Why do you think so many people hate the Yankees and Patriots? Some of us like to coat our jealousy in socialist doublespeak, but that's all it really ever is: you have something I want and I'm too stupid and/or lazy to get it myself.
Or my oppressed masses may find out how good a democratic style gov't really is, and I'll have to work for a living.
So you're seeking to force your morality on me?
So why shouldn't Darwinism apply to the human race like it applies to the rest of the world?
Oh, I know that :-)
I was looking for the academic answer!
But, in the online world, what consists of "doing business?"
If neither Google nor Doubleclick have offices in the EU, and someone from the EU visits a website in the USA that has Google ads and Doubleclick adds, which set of laws apply?
>> The EU enforces a common market, other treaties are mostly meaningless word candy.
:-)
Ahh, I see where I was mistaken. I had thought the treaties all had more teeth than that.
As for the Nazism, that's the only type of European free speech-related news that seems to make it over here, even on the BBC websites and Google news.
Of course, when it comes to cultural imperialism, the US is screwed no matter what. We're either trying to impose our will on others or we're indifferent. There doesn't seem to be a happy medium for us.
Though on behalf of all geeks everywhere, I'd like to thank a Finn for Linus
I didn't say all of Europe, I said all the countries on the list. Big difference, unless you're saying some countries are more European than others. And no, I didn't bother reading the speech laws for each of the countries on said list. But I don't go around reading the laws for all 50 states, either :-). Heck, what's a felony in MA is 100% legal in VT, and they frickin' border each other. Isn't Germany extra ban happy anwyay?
:-P
Heck, if it's banned in one, how is that a good thing? Doesn't the EU have treaties that try to "normalize" the speech laws amongst its members? I know that Nazi memorabilia is not legal in Germany. How is that good for free speech? Banning things never does anyone any good. It just pushes the crap underground, where it festers, then explodes at inopportune times. Of course, I happen to be a big fan of unfettered free speech, but most people think that means no consequences.
It's also interesting that you're saying the US is anything like the third world hellholes in South America. I doubt you'd like me to equate the backwater country of the Vatican with Finland, would you?
A pure WWW is gonna work real bad without that whole TCP/IP thing :-)
Besides, the Swiss are neutral, which is exactly what we want from the Net.
And yet, in all those countries in Europe, isn't it against the law to print that you don't think the Nazis killed a ton of Jewish people? How is that free press? Shouldn't you be able to make an idiot out of yourself?
No, lots of us like that idea.
You just end up with whackos telling you you're paranoid. Then those whackos get political office, and it goes downhill.
Both are crimes. They're not mutually exclusive.
Iowa doesn't have primaries. They have caucuses.
How can we give a crap about something that doesn't exist?
There is no such thing as international law, only international agreements.
It's SUPPOSED to be, "Thou shalt not murder."
After all, self defense is a God-given right. You don't end up with a lot of followers if you let yourselves get killed.
Actually, the Constitution for my state guarantees the right of armed revolution.
The Federal Constitution is supposed to be a limit on the powers of the government. It doesn't grant any rights (we already had them), it's supposed to be a framework for limited government that Lincoln started to kill and FDR finished.
Interestingly enough, MS is also criticized for following American law when they earn as much money for their shareholders as possible (fiduciary duty).