You asked for an example of where government could abuse its power to spy on messages (and then slammed Libertarians as stupid fools with hamsters in their heads). I provided the example requested.
It's too late now to pretend the UK's "provide the encryption key or spend 5 years in jail" Law is not an example of government force and violence.
"Darkness404" was marked troll and so was my post. I guess people don't like hearing the truth about how their money has lost approximately 1/100th of its value since 1910. (i.e. What costs 1 dollar today would have only cost 1 penny in 1910... the dollar is now as worthless as a 1910 penny.) Still that's no reason to mod down these two posts.
>>>Jefferson's ideals didn't work all that well 200 years ago
What are you talking about? From the 1800 "Democrat Revolution" to circa 1900, his pro-small government and pro-10th amendment views worked just fine. During that century Americans enjoyed more individual freedom than any other group of people since... well, ever.
His only failure was he was unable to convince his fellow Virginians to free the slaves (despite pushing hard for it), but no man is perfect and it's ridiculous to expect perfection when none of us are. HOWEVER he did succeed in wiping-out the Official State Religion and bringing the "separation of church and state" to the forefront, to ensure religious freedom for all. Basically he (and others) over-turned 1500 years of Catholic dominance. He listed it as his 2nd best accomplishment.
Anyway I would love to see a return to the "every man is self-ruled" freedom enjoyed in the 1800s. I am tired of the government telling me I can't smoke marijuana while relaxing in the evening, can't choose my own school (unless I'm rich), can't grow corn/food in my own backyard without Congresses' permission (Wickard v. Filburn), and can't send private messages without being spied upon.
Basically put the 9th and 10th Amendments back on top as the primary law. Congress cannot exercise powers never granted to it.
You're right but you're failing to take into account time. We've got about 300 years of oil/coal underground (200 years of which is already gone). However it took ~300,000,000 years during the age of Giant Ferns (pre-reptiles) to lay down all that fuel. There has been very little added since then.
So if you think saving forests will somehow produce coal, you will be waiting a long, long, long, long time before you get any measurable amount. 99.999% of the dead forest gets digested by bacteria/fungi and the carbon released back to the air. Only an infinitesimal amount becomes permanently preserved/sequestered.
It would be wiser for us to use the trees and stop using plastics, oil, and coal. Trees are carbon-neutral while plastics, et cetera are not.
I answered that too. Trees DON'T sequester carbon. They eventually die, the bacteria/fungi eat them, and the carbon is released back to the atmosphere.
I also pointed-out it makes more sense to burn a renewable source like trees, which are carbon neutral like ethanol plants, rather than burn oil or coal.
An Edison bulb is simply an incandescent lightbulb. Ya know - the thing we've been using these last 100+ years.
And I've been using CFLs for almost 20 years. Have you? ----- I am well aware of their numerous flaws and why I've concluded they are an inferior techniology (quick to die, hard to dispose, and require import from ~10,000 miles away thereby using MORE energy not less).
"People"? You forgot corporations. A company would gladly pay 10 million to preserve their copyright of Snow White, especially if they know they can make 100 million off the theatrical release and later DVD/bluray sales.
Nah. The SCOTUS has already nullified previous attempts by Congress to redefine basic english words.
Well except for the "commerce among states" clause which somehow got twisted to include commerce inside states, but then the Justices had just been threatened by the President, so it's understandable why they felt pressured to let the unconstitutional law stand & appease FDR. (They were well aware what happened when the courts tried to stand against Mussolini.)
>>>I think that copyright should be defined based on both time and profit.
It should really be tied to lifespan. When the original laborer dies, the monopoly dies with him. The 1790s Congress attempted to do that, with Jefferson looking at death tables and determining the average lifespan after creation of a book was 19 years, therefore copyright should expire 19 years after first applied for. I'm not sure how the actual law became "14" years unless they misread Jefferson's handwriting?
Anyway I like that idea. 19 years. Or two decades. That's should be enough time for the author to "pass away" and the monopoly to end shortly thereafter. Children/grandchildren should not be earning money from work they never performed.
>>>Corporations, in practice, are great shields against all sorts of liabilities.
Yep corporations can get away with murder. All the CEO or Board needs to do is find an employee willing to do that job (example: dump poisons into drinking water). They will be shielded by the corporate license.
I was making the point that in a court case the Corporation is treated as if it were one single individual, but it can not be punished the way an individual can (i.e. it can't be sent to deathrow). Nor can the actual individuals be touched because they are protected by the Immunity of the corporate license.
Therefore it is illogical to treat a corporation as an individual, since it can not be punished like an individual (nor does it have the individual's right to cast a ballot in November). It is a thing. Nothing more.
But a corporation without limited liability (basically immunity) would no longer be a corporation. It would just be like any other non-incorporated company
It strikes me as odd that people who claim "corporations should be treated as if they were an individual" with rights, never grant the corporation the right to vote in elections. Why that particular exception? Answer: Because they know that corporations are not individuals and NOT entitled to the same rights as actual human beings.
My suggested amendment merely recognizes that fact.
>>>"imaginary people" such as corporations are....imaginary. They cannot act because they do not exist.
Tell that to the people manslaughtered by the Ford Corporation when their Pinto cars blew-up. And yes accidents happen but the Corporation knew the fuel tanks were flawed and decided (as a whole), it was cheaper to just pay the dead people's families. That's practically premeditation. But what can you do?
Nothing except fine the company while the specific individuals that made the decision take golden parachutes and escape without punishment for their crime. The corporation should be treated as an object and nothing more. The company can keep its immunity but it shall have no rights; only privileges which can be revoked at anytime with a mere act of Congress.
>>>Corporations and PACs and Unions all are made up of people, so you're claiming that the constituent people have no rights
I really wish Americans would learn reading comprehension.
I said nothing of the kind. While my proposed amendment would forbid Microsoft Corporation (for example) from having a right to free speech, or right to hire lobbyists inside the halls of Congress, or right to buy ads to support a favorite Shill for congressman..... the individual janitors, programmers, managers, et cetera would still retain the right of speech, lobbying, and so on. So if Janitor Bob Smith wants to lobby congress and say, "Microsoft is the best damn company in the world," he still can.
>>>some isolated locations in the US where electric heat is, actually, cheaper than gas/oil/etc
But not cheaper than an electric heat pum, whicvh is betwween 1/3-to-1/2 cheaper than resistance heating
As for bulbs:
Edison bulbs are older but still superior tech to CFLs, since they eliminate mercury poisoning, dim turnons (waiting 3-4 minutes until I can see my book), premature heat-death from enclosed fixtures or upside-down fixtures, and high cost (about ten times more). The old Edison bulbs also eliminate the diesel or gasoline emissions from special trucks having to collect the CFLs, in order to recycle them at a central plant that burns even MORE energy.
Edison bulbs also are locally built in US or EU factories, whereas CFLs have to be shipped ~10,000 miles from Chinese or Indian factories. It all adds up a lot of reasons to consider CFLs an inferior and *dirtier* technology. . (dons flame-repellent armor)
Yes I know we were discussing a guy and his private cabin/ forest. Then some Green nutcase came-along and told him he's a tree-killer who is making more CO2 to "poison" the planet.
All I was trying to do was defend the guy from being browbeat by a Bible-thumping.... oops I mean a tree-hugging crazy.
Which has nothing to do with anything. It's non-relevant to my original point that if trees were in high demand (for furniture, appliances, fuel), they'd never go extinct (because we'd plant more).
We should also have an amendment that Rights listed in the constitution only apply to individual human beings. (i.e. Not corporations or PACs or Unions, or any other non-human thing that doesn't presently have a right to vote.)
And certainly more useful than a "don't burn the flag" amendment:
Amendment ___ - Strike the clause "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Replace with "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for Two Decades to Authors and Inventors the revocable Privilege to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Slashdot Mirror
You asked for an example of where government could abuse its power to spy on messages (and then slammed Libertarians as stupid fools with hamsters in their heads). I provided the example requested.
It's too late now to pretend the UK's "provide the encryption key or spend 5 years in jail" Law is not an example of government force and violence.
"Darkness404" was marked troll and so was my post. I guess people don't like hearing the truth about how their money has lost approximately 1/100th of its value since 1910. (i.e. What costs 1 dollar today would have only cost 1 penny in 1910... the dollar is now as worthless as a 1910 penny.) Still that's no reason to mod down these two posts.
"I Disagree" is not a moderation option.
>>>Jefferson's ideals didn't work all that well 200 years ago
What are you talking about? From the 1800 "Democrat Revolution" to circa 1900, his pro-small government and pro-10th amendment views worked just fine. During that century Americans enjoyed more individual freedom than any other group of people since... well, ever.
His only failure was he was unable to convince his fellow Virginians to free the slaves (despite pushing hard for it), but no man is perfect and it's ridiculous to expect perfection when none of us are. HOWEVER he did succeed in wiping-out the Official State Religion and bringing the "separation of church and state" to the forefront, to ensure religious freedom for all. Basically he (and others) over-turned 1500 years of Catholic dominance. He listed it as his 2nd best accomplishment.
Anyway I would love to see a return to the "every man is self-ruled" freedom enjoyed in the 1800s. I am tired of the government telling me I can't smoke marijuana while relaxing in the evening, can't choose my own school (unless I'm rich), can't grow corn/food in my own backyard without Congresses' permission (Wickard v. Filburn), and can't send private messages without being spied upon.
Basically put the 9th and 10th Amendments back on top as the primary law. Congress cannot exercise powers never granted to it.
You're right but you're failing to take into account time. We've got about 300 years of oil/coal underground (200 years of which is already gone). However it took ~300,000,000 years during the age of Giant Ferns (pre-reptiles) to lay down all that fuel. There has been very little added since then.
So if you think saving forests will somehow produce coal, you will be waiting a long, long, long, long time before you get any measurable amount. 99.999% of the dead forest gets digested by bacteria/fungi and the carbon released back to the air. Only an infinitesimal amount becomes permanently preserved/sequestered.
It would be wiser for us to use the trees and stop using plastics, oil, and coal. Trees are carbon-neutral while plastics, et cetera are not.
>>>regarding carbon-impact of burning hardwoods.
I answered that too. Trees DON'T sequester carbon. They eventually die, the bacteria/fungi eat them, and the carbon is released back to the atmosphere.
I also pointed-out it makes more sense to burn a renewable source like trees, which are carbon neutral like ethanol plants, rather than burn oil or coal.
An Edison bulb is simply an incandescent lightbulb. Ya know - the thing we've been using these last 100+ years.
And I've been using CFLs for almost 20 years. Have you? ----- I am well aware of their numerous flaws and why I've concluded they are an inferior techniology (quick to die, hard to dispose, and require import from ~10,000 miles away thereby using MORE energy not less).
"People"? You forgot corporations. A company would gladly pay 10 million to preserve their copyright of Snow White, especially if they know they can make 100 million off the theatrical release and later DVD/bluray sales.
Or the built-in editors that come with Mozilla/seaMonkey and Opera?
Question from non-blogger:
Why do you need special software like WordPress? Why can't you just use standard MS Word or WordPerfect, convert it to HTML, and publish it online?
Nah. The SCOTUS has already nullified previous attempts by Congress to redefine basic english words.
Well except for the "commerce among states" clause which somehow got twisted to include commerce inside states, but then the Justices had just been threatened by the President, so it's understandable why they felt pressured to let the unconstitutional law stand & appease FDR. (They were well aware what happened when the courts tried to stand against Mussolini.)
>>>I think that copyright should be defined based on both time and profit.
It should really be tied to lifespan. When the original laborer dies, the monopoly dies with him. The 1790s Congress attempted to do that, with Jefferson looking at death tables and determining the average lifespan after creation of a book was 19 years, therefore copyright should expire 19 years after first applied for. I'm not sure how the actual law became "14" years unless they misread Jefferson's handwriting?
Anyway I like that idea. 19 years. Or two decades. That's should be enough time for the author to "pass away" and the monopoly to end shortly thereafter. Children/grandchildren should not be earning money from work they never performed.
>>>Corporations, in practice, are great shields against all sorts of liabilities.
Yep corporations can get away with murder. All the CEO or Board needs to do is find an employee willing to do that job (example: dump poisons into drinking water). They will be shielded by the corporate license.
Missing the point.
I was making the point that in a court case the Corporation is treated as if it were one single individual, but it can not be punished the way an individual can (i.e. it can't be sent to deathrow). Nor can the actual individuals be touched because they are protected by the Immunity of the corporate license.
Therefore it is illogical to treat a corporation as an individual, since it can not be punished like an individual (nor does it have the individual's right to cast a ballot in November). It is a thing. Nothing more.
But a corporation without limited liability (basically immunity) would no longer be a corporation. It would just be like any other non-incorporated company
We'd probably be a lot thinner.
I wouldn't mind if I could think of some way to steal back the Money the corporations stole from the taxpayers in the first place
Democrat Congress:
Same as the former Republican Congress but different corporate masters (military versus Hollywood). Either way we individuals get squashed.
It strikes me as odd that people who claim "corporations should be treated as if they were an individual" with rights, never grant the corporation the right to vote in elections. Why that particular exception? Answer: Because they know that corporations are not individuals and NOT entitled to the same rights as actual human beings.
My suggested amendment merely recognizes that fact.
>>>"imaginary people" such as corporations are....imaginary. They cannot act because they do not exist.
Tell that to the people manslaughtered by the Ford Corporation when their Pinto cars blew-up. And yes accidents happen but the Corporation knew the fuel tanks were flawed and decided (as a whole), it was cheaper to just pay the dead people's families. That's practically premeditation. But what can you do?
Nothing except fine the company while the specific individuals that made the decision take golden parachutes and escape without punishment for their crime. The corporation should be treated as an object and nothing more. The company can keep its immunity but it shall have no rights; only privileges which can be revoked at anytime with a mere act of Congress.
>>>Corporations and PACs and Unions all are made up of people, so you're claiming that the constituent people have no rights
I really wish Americans would learn reading comprehension.
I said nothing of the kind. While my proposed amendment would forbid Microsoft Corporation (for example) from having a right to free speech, or right to hire lobbyists inside the halls of Congress, or right to buy ads to support a favorite Shill for congressman..... the individual janitors, programmers, managers, et cetera would still retain the right of speech, lobbying, and so on. So if Janitor Bob Smith wants to lobby congress and say, "Microsoft is the best damn company in the world," he still can.
>>>some isolated locations in the US where electric heat is, actually, cheaper than gas/oil/etc
But not cheaper than an electric heat pum, whicvh is betwween 1/3-to-1/2 cheaper than resistance heating
As for bulbs:
Edison bulbs are older but still superior tech to CFLs, since they eliminate mercury poisoning, dim turnons (waiting 3-4 minutes until I can see my book), premature heat-death from enclosed fixtures or upside-down fixtures, and high cost (about ten times more). The old Edison bulbs also eliminate the diesel or gasoline emissions from special trucks having to collect the CFLs, in order to recycle them at a central plant that burns even MORE energy.
Edison bulbs also are locally built in US or EU factories, whereas CFLs have to be shipped ~10,000 miles from Chinese or Indian factories. It all adds up a lot of reasons to consider CFLs an inferior and *dirtier* technology.
.
(dons flame-repellent armor)
Yes I know we were discussing a guy and his private cabin/ forest. Then some Green nutcase came-along and told him he's a tree-killer who is making more CO2 to "poison" the planet.
All I was trying to do was defend the guy from being browbeat by a Bible-thumping.... oops I mean a tree-hugging crazy.
Which has nothing to do with anything. It's non-relevant to my original point that if trees were in high demand (for furniture, appliances, fuel), they'd never go extinct (because we'd plant more).
We should also have an amendment that Rights listed in the constitution only apply to individual human beings. (i.e. Not corporations or PACs or Unions, or any other non-human thing that doesn't presently have a right to vote.)
And certainly more useful than a "don't burn the flag" amendment:
Amendment ___ - Strike the clause "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"
Replace with "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for Two Decades to Authors and Inventors the revocable Privilege to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"