Or, better yet, don't choose "evil" at all... take a stand and refuse the non-choices we have been given for candidates. Vote your conscience, and let the cards fall where they will.
They WANT you to think you're cornered and only have two options... that kind of fear is what keeps the same idiots in power year after year, election after election.
Except for the fact that being on a precious metal standard (see below) restricted government's ability to run up outrageous debt like we have now. Granted, there was debt, but with a fiat money system the deficit spending is able to go on for decades until our entire economy is controlled by this debt.
On the term "Gold Standard"... I REALLY hate it when people keep saying "Gold Standard", which is never what it was intended to be... it was supposed to be Gold AND Silver, measured against each other... this adds an immense amount of flexibility and stability to the market, but I guess that doesn't fit with the Keynesian interpretation of Hard Money. Keynesian economists like to paint Hard Money as this antiquated, ridiculously quaint system that would never work in our modern "advanced" economic system. Utterly stupid.
Nothing but canned soundbites and the same old same old rhetoric we've heard all year long. Barrack: "I'm gonna change things." McCain: "I'm a patriot, I tell you!"
We've heard their rote lines over and over and this provided absolutely nothing new. The questions were so very predictable and stale. There were no really challenging questions. This was the intellectual equivalent of a meaningless photo op. Listening to these answers didn't make me think they were "in touch" with me or understood my plight. Just like McCain getting his picture taken with underprivileged kids doesn't make me think he all of a sudden understands poverty.
Ridiculous.
You don't think there is corruption and bureaucratic inefficiency in "public schools, law enforcement, fire departments, public libraries, roads, post offices, etc."? We have learned through sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, when they get a little power, to exercise that power corruptly. I live in a small town where everyone knows everyone else and there is corruption even here.
Have we not learned our lesson from communism? The more power and control of people's lives Government has, the more widespread and pervasive society's problems are. Most problems we encounter are CAUSED by government. The sad thing is that we need government to a certain extent. So, we tolerate some of the problems it causes, but we must keep a watchful eye on government to make sure it doesn't overstep its bounds and we must keep a watchful eye on ourselves and our neighbor, lest they ask government to overstep its bounds.
The Internet is one area that government does not need to interfere with. I pay $50 a month to get unlimited high speed Internet access. If my neighbor wants to save a few bucks, let him get a limited plan for $40. What do I care? What should my neighbor care? There is no need for the government to step in. Ever.
So am I, but you assume that you can have corporatism without incorporation. The one requires the other. Look carefully at the definitions you linked...
Princeton said:
...control of a state or organization by large interest groups...
Wikipedia said:
Historically, corporatism... refers to a political or economic system in which power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, social, cultural, and professional groups
The unspoken rule under this definition is that the largest and most powerful "groups" control.
Wiktionary said:
Political system in which power is exercised through large organizations (businesses, trade unions, etc) working in concert with each other, under the direction of the state
Each of these presupposes the existence of the corporate entity. In other words, those in power (the politicians) create artificial entities (the corporations) to which they grant special privileges and powers, thus further solidifying the power structure as it existed when the corporations were created in the first place.
Therefore, as I said to begin with, Capitalism is diametrically opposed to Corporatism; the one eschewing government intervention, the other embracing and demanding it.
I think you are confused. Corporatism, by definition, REQUIRES regulation, namely the establishment of the corporation. Corporations are artificial entities that only exist because governments recognize their existence.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is nothing more than the free market, unhindered by government intervention.
To quote Wikipedia:
Capitalism is the economic system in which the means of production are owned by private persons, and operated for profit[1] and where investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are predominantly determined through the operation of a free market.
Indeed, the problem is not capitalism, but corporatism. Corporations are artificial entities created, supported, and given special privileges by government.
Capitalism, on the other hand, encourages vigorous competition and everyone is on an equal playing field. With capitalism, everyone wins... with corporatism, a few win and everyone else loses big time.
NO! Never do that! Never try to understand another person's point of view. You wouldn't want to do that!
Seriously... you people accuse Republicans of being closed minded? Take a look in the freaking mirror. You scream and yell about them holding onto "religious superstition", while you sit there holding onto "political superstitions".
And no... I'm not a Republican. I just can't stand to see this kind of intellectual laziness.
Debate the issues and be willing to admit that you don't know everything or shut up and let the adults talk.
You don't listen very well. I never said everything should be free, in fact I said the exact opposite. I agree that there should be a punishment affixed to every crime, but that the punishment should fit the crime. Here, we are talking about the civil penalties for crime and as I have stated the Supreme Court has already said that any punitive damages over 10 times is automatically unconstitutional. So, don't argue with me about that, argue with the Supreme Court.
I also want to clear something else up. Perhaps you don't understand this, since you are not a lawyer, but there is a difference between compensatory damages and punitive damages. A defendant must pay compensatory damages equaling the value of the items sold, court costs and attorney's fees, and any other direct and consequential damages the plaintiff has suffered. AFTER THAT, the court can award punitive damages ON TOP OF the compensatory damages. So, the $750 here is over and above and compensatory damages and is PURELY for punishing the act to deter future theft.
Every state has their punitive damages laws. In Connecticut, the law reads:
Section 52-564 Theft. Treble (triple) damages if defendant stole property of another or knowingly received and concealed stolen property. (Mandatory.)
Section 52-564a Shoplifting. Punitive damages in amount not to exceed $300.
In California the court may award the injured party the cost of the item stolen plus punitive damages "not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two hundred dollars."
In no case can shoplifting result in punitive fines in the range of the several thousands of dollars that allowed for the RIAA to collect.
Pretty much every state is about the same, putting a CAP on punitive damages and leaving it up to the court to use its judgment. But the RIAA has a special piece of legislation that allows them to collect their actual damages and then collect an EXTRA $750 per song. One CD's worth of songs can easily end up costing $7,500 just in punitive damages, something that wouldn't be permitted in any state if the person simply shoplifted the CD off the rack.
Do you now see the disturbing disparity between the laws that every other business in America is forced to abide by and what the RIAA is getting? Again, my problem is not that the RIAA is getting punitive damages, my problem is that they are getting so much more in punitive damages than is allowed by any state and far more than the Supreme Court has said is Constitutional.
You make a statement, then as "proof" of your statement you provide a link to some ostensibly authoritative site, and consider your point proven.
You've admitted that your Google search was only "precursory" and then claim that the 8th amendment simply does not apply to civil cases, when I have already given you the actual case citation of a case in which its applicability in civil cases is explicitly stated.
I have no "agenda" and I have not given you "evidence", I have given you evidence (no quotes necessary). I have given case citation and you have given nothing but your opinion.
Following links to the case you provided...
That case was provided for support to my claim that the 8th amendment does apply to civil cases (following my own "precursory" Google search, so obviously your search was woefully lacking.). But my argument against the Constitutionality of these punitive damages does not rely solely on the 8th amendment argument, as there is plenty of case law on the application of punitive damages (read the post by Trepidity).
Now, the question you SHOULD be asking is if the case law is so well established on this issues, how did the RIAA get away with it? And, as I have stated previously, they got a sweatheart deal by buying off politicians. This has nothing to do with "agenda", it has to do with knowing what the limits of government are and holding our government to those limits.
As a defense attorney myself, I continually have to force government to support every assertion it makes and it drives me nuts when people like you blithely roll over to presumed authority. That kind of attitude is worse than useless, it is dangerous.
Well, that may be what their reasoning is, but that is stupid... That's like saying, "Because you bought marijuana, you've probably sold it also, so we are going to charge for distribution of illegal drugs."
In America we only hold people accountable for things they have actually done... not things we THINK they've done (actions of the current administration notwithstanding). There is a little things called "proof" required in courts of law.
Please tell me where I made a factual mistake. The 8th ammendment applies to criminal cases, period.
The 8th amendment has not been applied only to criminal cases. In Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993), the Court noted that the application of the excessive fines clause to civil forfeiture did not depend on whether it was a civil or criminal procedure, but rather on whether the forfeiture could be seen as punishment.
In addition, punitive damages are established by the state either through case law or legislation, so regardless of how it is used in civil cases by private parties, it still originates from governmental action and therefore triggers the 8th amendment.
So yes, the 8th ammendment scrutinizes the government actions (which is exactly what I mean when I say the RIAA is not to blame here, because the RIAA is not the one "supposedly" violating the constitution). Blame the government, blame the law, don't blame the RIAA for following the laws that are in place.
Except that it was the RIAA and its lobbyists that got the law on the books in the first place, so I can blame the RIAA.
If you don't like it, challenge it to the Supreme Court (and good luck with the "cruel and unusual" bit, or even the "excessive fines" bit, because $199 on top of the cost of something is hardly excessive.
No, it's $750+, the $200 was the "nice-guy" discount. That is 750 times actual damages. The Supreme Court has previously stated that punitive damages in excess of 4 times actual damages was unconstitutional and has stated in dicta that anything over 10 times is pretty much automatically unconstitutional
Here, you have the RIAA getting legislation that permits punitive damages in excess of 750 times actual damages. And you're going to tell me that the RIAA is innocent in this travesty? I think not.
The 8th ammendment also only applies criminal cases. If the RIAA is suing, then it isn't a criminal case. If it IS a criminal case, then the RIAA doesn't get to set the penalty, so stop blaming the RIAA.
Where did you go to law school?
The 8th amendment applies to government actions. Here, the government action is in establishing the law that permits the RIAA to obtain punitive damages 200 times in excess of any actual damages. If there was no such law, the RIAA would have to prove the justification for punitive damages in every case. But the RIAA paid off a few congressmen and got this sweatheart deal passed through.
The government established a law and that governmental action must be scrutinized under the Constitutional limitations put on Congress, in this case the 8th amendment.
Except that is not what the legislation fines you for... it fines you for downloading the songs, not for distributing them. And that is not what this individual is being fined for.
No, sir, it is $200 PER SONG and that's if you get the "innocent infringement" defense. Otherwise it will be $750 PER SONG. In addition, the RIAA does not go after someone for downloading 1 song... they go after someone who has downloaded probably thousands of songs. The total fines can easily reach $1 million or more. That is unconscionable in my book.
Thank you, that is exactly my point. If this guy download 1 CD worth of songs (10 songs), they are going to fine him $2,000 dollars. That is pretty darn steep. But more than likely, he downloaded more than just 1 CD worth... he probably download 10 or 50 or 100 CDs worth. So he's looking at maybe $200,000 in fines. The RIAA should not have that kind of power... no one should.
Yes, and something from the Constitution comes to mind... something about cruel and unusual punishment. If you can't be sent to prison for life for shoplifting, why should the RIAA be able to charge you 750 times the sale price (the court was going "easy" on the defendant here by only fining him 200 times the sale price) of their crappy music? Again, read my post... I don't necessarily have a problem with the existence of punishment for these crimes... it is the severity of the punishment that I think is outrageous. You don't see a 20,000% mark-up a little unconscionable?
The question is not whether there should be punishment, the question is whether the punishment fits the crime. $200 a song is outrageous (let alone the $750 normally fined).
There is a huge difference between punishment and enslavement. This person would have to work forever to pay off this debt. That hardly fits the crime. Make him pay 2, 3, 4 or even 6 times the cost of the song and that would be punishment enough... but 200 times?!? That is unconscionable.
The RIAA needs to be taken down a few notches and SHAME on the courts for allowing them to run their racket as long as they have.
Like they said in the article... the first manned flight was a whopping 12 seconds long and probably wasn't very "impressive"... but I bet you'd still like to have been at Kitty Hawk.
The point is that this is a great first step towards practical personal flight. While it may not be practical right now to own one (100k is out of my price range), how expensive were the first PCs? Now they're dirt cheap.
I really can't stand all the whiners on/. who down play everyone else's achievements... what was the last thing you invented? Jackass.
Honestly, you people get more excited about some obscure scientific discovery that won't have any practical applications for decades and yet something that is tangible and available NOW is just pissed on.
Get real and get a life.
Slashdot Mirror
They WANT you to think you're cornered and only have two options... that kind of fear is what keeps the same idiots in power year after year, election after election.
On the term "Gold Standard"... I REALLY hate it when people keep saying "Gold Standard", which is never what it was intended to be... it was supposed to be Gold AND Silver, measured against each other... this adds an immense amount of flexibility and stability to the market, but I guess that doesn't fit with the Keynesian interpretation of Hard Money. Keynesian economists like to paint Hard Money as this antiquated, ridiculously quaint system that would never work in our modern "advanced" economic system. Utterly stupid.
Nothing but canned soundbites and the same old same old rhetoric we've heard all year long. Barrack: "I'm gonna change things." McCain: "I'm a patriot, I tell you!" We've heard their rote lines over and over and this provided absolutely nothing new. The questions were so very predictable and stale. There were no really challenging questions. This was the intellectual equivalent of a meaningless photo op. Listening to these answers didn't make me think they were "in touch" with me or understood my plight. Just like McCain getting his picture taken with underprivileged kids doesn't make me think he all of a sudden understands poverty. Ridiculous.
Have we not learned our lesson from communism? The more power and control of people's lives Government has, the more widespread and pervasive society's problems are. Most problems we encounter are CAUSED by government. The sad thing is that we need government to a certain extent. So, we tolerate some of the problems it causes, but we must keep a watchful eye on government to make sure it doesn't overstep its bounds and we must keep a watchful eye on ourselves and our neighbor, lest they ask government to overstep its bounds.
The Internet is one area that government does not need to interfere with. I pay $50 a month to get unlimited high speed Internet access. If my neighbor wants to save a few bucks, let him get a limited plan for $40. What do I care? What should my neighbor care? There is no need for the government to step in. Ever.
Princeton said:
...control of a state or organization by large interest groups...
Wikipedia said:
Historically, corporatism... refers to a political or economic system in which power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, social, cultural, and professional groups
The unspoken rule under this definition is that the largest and most powerful "groups" control. Wiktionary said:
Political system in which power is exercised through large organizations (businesses, trade unions, etc) working in concert with each other, under the direction of the state
Each of these presupposes the existence of the corporate entity. In other words, those in power (the politicians) create artificial entities (the corporations) to which they grant special privileges and powers, thus further solidifying the power structure as it existed when the corporations were created in the first place.
Therefore, as I said to begin with, Capitalism is diametrically opposed to Corporatism; the one eschewing government intervention, the other embracing and demanding it.
Capitalism, on the other hand, is nothing more than the free market, unhindered by government intervention.
To quote Wikipedia:
Capitalism is the economic system in which the means of production are owned by private persons, and operated for profit[1] and where investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are predominantly determined through the operation of a free market.
Indeed, the problem is not capitalism, but corporatism. Corporations are artificial entities created, supported, and given special privileges by government. Capitalism, on the other hand, encourages vigorous competition and everyone is on an equal playing field. With capitalism, everyone wins... with corporatism, a few win and everyone else loses big time.
Precisely, jmorris42. You've nailed it.
Seriously... you people accuse Republicans of being closed minded? Take a look in the freaking mirror. You scream and yell about them holding onto "religious superstition", while you sit there holding onto "political superstitions".
And no... I'm not a Republican. I just can't stand to see this kind of intellectual laziness.
Debate the issues and be willing to admit that you don't know everything or shut up and let the adults talk.
I also want to clear something else up. Perhaps you don't understand this, since you are not a lawyer, but there is a difference between compensatory damages and punitive damages. A defendant must pay compensatory damages equaling the value of the items sold, court costs and attorney's fees, and any other direct and consequential damages the plaintiff has suffered. AFTER THAT, the court can award punitive damages ON TOP OF the compensatory damages. So, the $750 here is over and above and compensatory damages and is PURELY for punishing the act to deter future theft.
Every state has their punitive damages laws. In Connecticut, the law reads:
Section 52-564 Theft. Treble (triple) damages if defendant stole property of another or knowingly received and concealed stolen property. (Mandatory.)
Section 52-564a Shoplifting. Punitive damages in amount not to exceed $300.
In California the court may award the injured party the cost of the item stolen plus punitive damages "not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two hundred dollars."
In no case can shoplifting result in punitive fines in the range of the several thousands of dollars that allowed for the RIAA to collect.
Pretty much every state is about the same, putting a CAP on punitive damages and leaving it up to the court to use its judgment. But the RIAA has a special piece of legislation that allows them to collect their actual damages and then collect an EXTRA $750 per song. One CD's worth of songs can easily end up costing $7,500 just in punitive damages, something that wouldn't be permitted in any state if the person simply shoplifted the CD off the rack.
Do you now see the disturbing disparity between the laws that every other business in America is forced to abide by and what the RIAA is getting? Again, my problem is not that the RIAA is getting punitive damages, my problem is that they are getting so much more in punitive damages than is allowed by any state and far more than the Supreme Court has said is Constitutional.
but the 8th amendment still only applies to criminal cases. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment08/ [findlaw.com]
You make a statement, then as "proof" of your statement you provide a link to some ostensibly authoritative site, and consider your point proven.
You've admitted that your Google search was only "precursory" and then claim that the 8th amendment simply does not apply to civil cases, when I have already given you the actual case citation of a case in which its applicability in civil cases is explicitly stated.
I have no "agenda" and I have not given you "evidence", I have given you evidence (no quotes necessary). I have given case citation and you have given nothing but your opinion.
Following links to the case you provided...
That case was provided for support to my claim that the 8th amendment does apply to civil cases (following my own "precursory" Google search, so obviously your search was woefully lacking.). But my argument against the Constitutionality of these punitive damages does not rely solely on the 8th amendment argument, as there is plenty of case law on the application of punitive damages (read the post by Trepidity).
Now, the question you SHOULD be asking is if the case law is so well established on this issues, how did the RIAA get away with it? And, as I have stated previously, they got a sweatheart deal by buying off politicians. This has nothing to do with "agenda", it has to do with knowing what the limits of government are and holding our government to those limits.
As a defense attorney myself, I continually have to force government to support every assertion it makes and it drives me nuts when people like you blithely roll over to presumed authority. That kind of attitude is worse than useless, it is dangerous.
In America we only hold people accountable for things they have actually done... not things we THINK they've done (actions of the current administration notwithstanding). There is a little things called "proof" required in courts of law.
Please tell me where I made a factual mistake. The 8th ammendment applies to criminal cases, period.
The 8th amendment has not been applied only to criminal cases. In Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993), the Court noted that the application of the excessive fines clause to civil forfeiture did not depend on whether it was a civil or criminal procedure, but rather on whether the forfeiture could be seen as punishment.
In addition, punitive damages are established by the state either through case law or legislation, so regardless of how it is used in civil cases by private parties, it still originates from governmental action and therefore triggers the 8th amendment.
So yes, the 8th ammendment scrutinizes the government actions (which is exactly what I mean when I say the RIAA is not to blame here, because the RIAA is not the one "supposedly" violating the constitution). Blame the government, blame the law, don't blame the RIAA for following the laws that are in place.
Except that it was the RIAA and its lobbyists that got the law on the books in the first place, so I can blame the RIAA.
If you don't like it, challenge it to the Supreme Court (and good luck with the "cruel and unusual" bit, or even the "excessive fines" bit, because $199 on top of the cost of something is hardly excessive.
No, it's $750+, the $200 was the "nice-guy" discount. That is 750 times actual damages. The Supreme Court has previously stated that punitive damages in excess of 4 times actual damages was unconstitutional and has stated in dicta that anything over 10 times is pretty much automatically unconstitutional
Here, you have the RIAA getting legislation that permits punitive damages in excess of 750 times actual damages. And you're going to tell me that the RIAA is innocent in this travesty? I think not.
The 8th ammendment also only applies criminal cases. If the RIAA is suing, then it isn't a criminal case. If it IS a criminal case, then the RIAA doesn't get to set the penalty, so stop blaming the RIAA.
Where did you go to law school?
The 8th amendment applies to government actions. Here, the government action is in establishing the law that permits the RIAA to obtain punitive damages 200 times in excess of any actual damages. If there was no such law, the RIAA would have to prove the justification for punitive damages in every case. But the RIAA paid off a few congressmen and got this sweatheart deal passed through.
The government established a law and that governmental action must be scrutinized under the Constitutional limitations put on Congress, in this case the 8th amendment.
Except that is not what the legislation fines you for... it fines you for downloading the songs, not for distributing them. And that is not what this individual is being fined for.
No, sir, it is $200 PER SONG and that's if you get the "innocent infringement" defense. Otherwise it will be $750 PER SONG. In addition, the RIAA does not go after someone for downloading 1 song... they go after someone who has downloaded probably thousands of songs. The total fines can easily reach $1 million or more. That is unconscionable in my book.
Thank you, that is exactly my point. If this guy download 1 CD worth of songs (10 songs), they are going to fine him $2,000 dollars. That is pretty darn steep. But more than likely, he downloaded more than just 1 CD worth... he probably download 10 or 50 or 100 CDs worth. So he's looking at maybe $200,000 in fines. The RIAA should not have that kind of power... no one should.
Yes, and something from the Constitution comes to mind... something about cruel and unusual punishment. If you can't be sent to prison for life for shoplifting, why should the RIAA be able to charge you 750 times the sale price (the court was going "easy" on the defendant here by only fining him 200 times the sale price) of their crappy music? Again, read my post... I don't necessarily have a problem with the existence of punishment for these crimes... it is the severity of the punishment that I think is outrageous. You don't see a 20,000% mark-up a little unconscionable?
The question is not whether there should be punishment, the question is whether the punishment fits the crime. $200 a song is outrageous (let alone the $750 normally fined). There is a huge difference between punishment and enslavement. This person would have to work forever to pay off this debt. That hardly fits the crime. Make him pay 2, 3, 4 or even 6 times the cost of the song and that would be punishment enough... but 200 times?!? That is unconscionable. The RIAA needs to be taken down a few notches and SHAME on the courts for allowing them to run their racket as long as they have.
Like they said in the article... the first manned flight was a whopping 12 seconds long and probably wasn't very "impressive"... but I bet you'd still like to have been at Kitty Hawk. The point is that this is a great first step towards practical personal flight. While it may not be practical right now to own one (100k is out of my price range), how expensive were the first PCs? Now they're dirt cheap. I really can't stand all the whiners on /. who down play everyone else's achievements... what was the last thing you invented? Jackass.
Honestly, you people get more excited about some obscure scientific discovery that won't have any practical applications for decades and yet something that is tangible and available NOW is just pissed on.
Get real and get a life.