> I think it is morally repugnant of you to break our agreement and decompile.
While you are welcome to your delusions, but out here in the real world we have some things called laws. Specifically the Uniform Commercial Code and the Copyright laws.
You will note that I excepted commercial licenses, since those are actual signed contracts and are legally binding.
According to the Uniform Commercial Code if goods are exchanged in regular trade there can't be strings attached; i.e. if it looks like a sale it IS a sale. If I buy a copy of Microsoft Windows from Newegg.com I did just that, I BOUGHT a copy of Windows. That means I can do anything with that copy, including read it. I can even copy it in whole or in part so long as such activity falls under the backup exception written into the law or by Fair Use. Of course any other reproduction is forbidden by the artifical monopoly rights granted to the author by copyright. While I have a lot of problems with how copyrights are currently operated (eternal instead of "limited times" as prescribed by the Constituition) I don't have a major problem with that limitation.
But think about it, what you are saying is that you can sell me a copyrighted work that I am forbidden to read myself. What a load of fetid dingos kidneys! Ford can't forbid me from taking apart a Caddy and not only making, but SELLING plans; but you think your algorithms are so freaking special that you want the government to put me in jail for the crime of reading them? What are you smoking?
What ethical problems?
on
Decompiling Java
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Good review, but I have one major nit to pick.
What ethical problems? Decompiling is perfectly moral and ethical. Whether it is illegal is a seperate and, for me, almost irelevant issue. If I legally own a copyrighted work I am allowed to read it, period and end of story. Corporate licences excepted, software is SOLD, not licensed despite the scary words on the box and the dread click through EULA.
Hell, I learned assembly by writing a disassembler (in BASIC) and reading the Microsoft BASIC roms, then later reading the commented listings that ran in Color Computer Magazine. (TO avoid a copyright fight, and because M$ refused to grant them permission, CCM ran only the comments and memory locations, leaving the reader to run their own dissassembly for the opcodes.)
The only ethical problem would be lifting the code and reusing it without permission and I think we all know that is wrong.
Yea! Glad the slashot poll wasn't reflective of the general population. So now we can get back to tech threads for another four years. ok, except for a ten minute hate every morning against: (pick one at random)
> Still, Tanenbaum doesn't really make reference to that on his site; he > acts as if the mere act of running electoral-vote.com somehow helps the > Democratic candidate. That's the part I don't understand.
It is all about making a Kerry victory expected but not so certain as to cause the faithful to lose the motivation to get out and vote. This does several things that helps Kerry.
1. It gets the faithful to the polls. If the numbers favor Bush very much the faithful lose hope and stay home.
2. A lot of polls showing a Kerry win are needed for their stated strategy of declaring victory as soon as the polls close, under their new theory that "If every voter is allowed to vote and every vote is counted, we win. Therefore a loss means election fraud and we unleash the lawyers to correct the injustice."
3. Polls showing a Kerry win will depress the Bush vote.
Sounds like Mr Tanenbaum, like most academics of today, is all too ready to sell out his professional ethics for political gain. Go hit realclearpolitics.com if you want maps derived from actual polling data.
His electoral map is so different from any other map I have yet seen it must be discarded as a statistical outlier. Besides eliminating most of the leaning Bush states, this asshat has CA as only 'leaning Kerry' (Obviously to ensure the Pro Kerry forces in CA get frightened to the polls.) Does ANYONE who follows politics believe for a nanosecond Bush could carry the People's Republic of California? Only in a 40plus state blowout scenario, and I don't see that happening this year.
> Dish's encryption scheme is modified enough from standard Nagravision > that the Nagra access cards compatible with PC-based DVB-S receivers > won't work with Dish.
Actually, from what I read it WOULD work if Dish would 'marry' one of their access cards to your DVB-S card. But they won't sell a card programmed for any box that doesn't have one of their serial numbers for fear of pissing off their content providers. Those providers don't mind Dishplayer because they ultimatly control it by being able to yank Dish's strings just like they are dictating to Tivo.
>...no party with a truly libertarian platform is going to command a > quorum in the United States in the forseeable future.
Exactly correct. So in the scenario of the Libertarians becoming ascendent they would be 'selling out' more and more principles to gain supporters. But Libertarian thought would still be the underlying principles guiding the party.
Think of the current Democratic Party as a good example; all of the most influencial thinkers are Socialists and that philosophy, limited by what is politically possible, guides most of the Party's actions even though they can't even use that word in public. Their hope is that over time they will influence public opinion such that their views become mainstream enough to be able to 'come out'. Considering the great progress they have made over the last century it is quite probable their day would have already come had it not been for Ronald Reagan. Ideas like redistribution of income, entitlements, group rights and an all powerful Federal government are firmly entrenched in the popular culture even with their party being in decline for the last twenty plus years.
The point being that a Libertarian Party popular enough to actually made it to power would be one that wouldn't govern anything like what WE think of as Libertarian. But if they continued in power any length of time they would subtly alter the fabric of American society such that more and more Libertarian ideas would be politically possible.
> The problem is not Democrats and Republicans; it's that there are > only two parties. It doesn't really matter what those two parties are.
Doesn't matter. We already have more than two parties as a practical matter. But to govern you have to have a coalition that adds to a majority. So we have an uneasy alliance between groups who don't really like one another, but know they need each other to govern. The groups not in the governing coalition end up mostly together in the out of piwer party. Really, what do Randite Libertarians and Falwell Fundies have in common other than sharing a few more common interests than either can find in the other camp? Same for tree hugging enviros and union thugs over in the other camp.
We tend to have two parties basically split over some overarching BIG issue and then most of the other issues fall out in one camp or the other with a few that just don't map to the current split. Right now that BIG issue is Capitalism vs Socialism. So the Fundies naturally fall into the other camp, not because they are big fans of Capitalism but because they can't stand the "godless commies". New parties tend to appear when that BIG issue changes.
The Republican party appeared when THE issue became "Does the concept of Federalism insulate a group of States against the determined will of another group of States. Specifically over the slavery issue." We all know who won that debate and the Federal Government has been out of control ever since, because at it's core the Republican are founded on belief in Federal power as much as or perhaps more than the Democrats, despite rhetoric to the contrary.
And by all appearances wasn't HONORABLY discharged until President Carter's general amensty in 1977. Of course we can't be sure since Kerry still refuses to sign the release for his military records to be made public.
> And, voila, after all your hard work, after all those votes that > sacrificed immediate advantage for the long-term hopes, you're right > back where you started: two parties, both of them sprawling coalitions > that don't really please anybody all that much, but please about half > the population juuuust enough.
Yes, but they won't be the SAME two parties. Not just the names will change, scramble things up badly and the new parties that emerge will not resemble the ones that exist now. Who knows how the new parties would coalese, much would depend on just what sort of third party manages to break out, they will accrete similarly aligned groups from both parties as they grow, leaving the remains to band together to fight the new party.
Right now we are locked into a Socialism & the Nanny State vs Capitalism & Moralistic Daddy State battle but, for example, if the Greens emerged as the new Party to beat the primary battle of ideas in American politics would take on a decidedly more environmentalist focus. Of course the existing battle would still continue, only more muted. Most Socialists are Green, and most hard core Greens are Socialist so at first glance it would appear little had changed. But under a Green vs Industry & Property Rights matchup the major issues would tend to reduce the position of big labor, possibly even pushing them to the 'other' camp. (See the first glimerings of this in the ANWAR dispute with some labor leaders in support of drilling as a pure jobs issue.)
On the other hand, if the Libertarians ascended they would acrete in a large chunk of the free market Republicans and that portion of the Democrats who still espouse Civil Rights as an individual concern (as opposed to the race baiters and demogogs who push the false religion of group rights). This would leave the rump end of both existing parties to make common cause somehow. So moral crusading socialists vs Libertarians?
Point being that even if a we ended up with two parties again, fighting for a third party is a worthwhile goal because even if you 'lose' in the sense of not keeping three parties or even keeping your new party 100% pure to its original goals, you CAN drasticaly change the politcal landscape. See what happened when the Republicans emerged for a good example.
> The electoral system is unfairly biased in Bush's favor,
You say that like it is a bad thing. On the other hand I understand the electoral college and think it serves a very useful purpose. That being to deny CA and NY the ability to determine just about any election and dictate their perverted views on the rest of us out here in flyover country.
Without the stabilizing influence of the electoral college we would almost certainly have had another succession attempt by some or all of the rural states. Not that in and of itself a breakup of the US would be a bad thing.
Based on an on the record statement he made back in the Vietnam era that "US force should only be used in service of UN goals." which he has never disavowed or in any way ran away from. Kerry doesn't flip flop on everything. Plus we have his vote on Gulf War I when he voted against the use of force even WITH the UN's approval. Hell, we even had Syria on board for Gulf War I and that didn't pass Kerry's "Global Test".
> When a judge strikes down a long-standing law because it violates the > constitution of their state or country, is that activism? Is it bad?
No it isn't bad or activist. So long as the law was actually unlawful. I.e. If the Supremes got a wild hair and started trashing whole Agencies on Amendment IX and Amendment X grounds I'd have little problem with it because they would only be doing what their predecessors would have done had they been fulfilling their Oath of Office. But if they legislate from the bench they are ALWAYS wrong, even if they pass a law I happen to agree with. Because in the longterm; good can never result from actions poisoned by evil.
> Judges have the responsibility for determining whether the laws of a > state are consistent with its consistution.
No argument. However in the MA 'Gay Marriage' case this isn't what happened. The Supremem Court reached up it's collective ass and decided a Right should exist, one which existed nowhere else before they created it, and that the Legislature must PASS a law to create this new Right they discovered. Big difference. If a Legislature can be told to pass a law, it really isn't soverign over it's area of responsibility anymore now is it?
This is basic Civics 101 stuff guys, Legislatures pass laws, the Executive enforces them and the Judiciary interprets them and can throw one out should a Law prove to be incompatible with the Constituition. But Congressmen cannot arrest those who violate the laws they pass, the executive can't pass a law or imprison people without a judge's OK. It is called checks and balances and it is one of the cornerstones of Western Civilization. I ain't willing to throw that out something that important to make points with any special interest, especially one as irelevant as the fairies. Democrats apparently are so willing, but I'm no longer sure most of them even BELIEVE in the Republican form of government any longer. Just watch how many of them get all misty eyed over tyrants like Castro or Arafat if you need convincing.
> I think that few state legislatures at this point would pass a law > fully outlawing abortion either.
If Roe V. Wade gets reversed things revert to the way they were. Most states still have bans on the books, they are just currently null and void because the Supremes passed a constituitional amendment outta their asses. When that gets flushed those existing laws will make it illegal in most states. My point is that very few legistatures will be able to muster the votes to actually PASS a law legalizing abortion. CA and NY would obviously do it post haste, but I seem to recall that they had already legalized it pre Roe.
Which is the same situation the homosexuals are in, even the MA legislature would have found it politically suicidal to redefine marriage to please a fringe constituancy by pissing off a majority of voters. SO they allowed the courts to do it and then sat back passive and 'allowed' it. Had they ACTUALLY opposed it they could have simply impeached the judges for such an obvious breach of their oaths of office. (A judge CANNOT order a legislature to pass a law, QED.)
> If Bush is re-elected and the time comes to put new Justices on the > Supreme Court what is he going to do?
He will appoint strict constructionists in the Rhenquist, Scalia and Thomas mold. They will interpret the Constituition and Laws as they exist instead of legislating their own beliefs from the bench. Which is what they are supposed to be doing.
> He's going to put judges on their that are sympathetic to his (not his > party's) own personal goal of bringing religious morality back into this > country.
Actually, most Republicans agree with his moral positions. But only Democrats want judges legislating ANY morality from the bench. All we want is judges who WON'T impose their morals. And if we could get a few who could read that would be just peachy. How hard is "Congress shall pass no law...." or "...shall not be infringed." to understand!
> Don't be silly, Kerry may not like Texas, but it should be able to > survive even if he wins.
I'm not joking. Kerry and most Dems think of the War on Terror like the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty, i.e. a metaphor. It isn't. The West is now locked in a steel cage deathmatch with Radical Islam for world supremacy. Bush might be an idiot on a lot of issues, but on that one issue he 'gets it' and more importantly has the right ideas about how to win. A bit wobbly at times on the implementation details, but show me a war without some major cock ups.
> Bush on marriage: "Marriage should be a union between a man and a woman."
> Kerry on marriage: "Marriage should be a union between an man and a woman."
Except everyone who actually follows politics knows there is a big difference. Democrats use the courts to pass policies they know they could never be elected by supporting. So while Kerry wouldn't say anything in support, he would happily sit by while activist judges (of the sort he would be appointing) rammed it down our throats. Just like with abortion. To this day there is zero chance Congress would vote to legalize abortion but Democrats depend on unelected Judges to do their dirty work for them. Bush on the other hand came out in support of taking the issue away from the courts and sends up strict constructionists who don't legislate from the bench.
As for oil, what else CAN we do. Kick their ass and take their gas? I know that is the popular myth among the Deanics for both Gulf Wars but it just ain't so. The Free Flow of Oil at Market Prices is what the Republicans fought for, and that is what we have. The uncertainty in the Middle East, political instability in Migeria and China's newfound appitite for oil has put a premium on oil prices.
> mostly of the Purple vs. Green variety
Excellent B5 episode, but the analogy doesn't fit.
No differnces between these two candidates? Ok, I don't expect deep political analysis from a tech columnist anymore than I expect a clear understanding of tech from a political one, but Jesus Tapdancing Christ, you can't get wider policy differences than you have this year.
Although I do give credit for his well researched analysis of the tech policies of each candidate. Even though Kerry hasn't done squat on the issues in his two decades in the Senate, by vigorously enforcing DMCA and working to exoort it, Bush is causeing harm. If Kerry could have passed the smell test I might have voted for him on the least harm principle.
Unfortunatly I'm convinced the Republic can't survive a Kerry win and that while Bush is screwing up a lot of things pretty badly, we can survive another term with him at the helm.
No, it is the very heart of the problem. If you really don't think Rather is biased I'd bet good money you are in the camp that says "Faux News" when referring to Fox News Channel. Who decides who is a "legitimate journalist" and who is illegally electioneering in that 60 day blackout period before an election? Eventually, if we continue down your dark path, it will have to end up with the FEC licensing of journalists; and if you can say with a straight face that there will then be any shred left of the 1st Amendment then there really isn't any point in continuing the conversation because we are using the same words but they don't mean the same things.
> Nor should you be able to advertise for corruption. Giving money to > parties could be thought of as a form of corruption.
Why do so many people seem to get this backwards? I don't contribute to a candidate in the hope he/she will change their position to one I agree with. I give to candidates who I agree with. So do large donors. Do you think Emily's List could give a pro-lifer a sack of cash and expect them to become pro-death in exchange? Not a chance. They give sacks of cash to candidates who support their position. People give Emily's List the cash because they support what they are doing. If some rich dude like Soros gives bigger sacks of cash that is OK so long as everyone knows he is doing it and where it is going. Limits are never going to be the answer, mandatory disclosure is the way to go.
That and limiting the money laundering that currently goes on. Limit things to one or perhaps two middle men. I.e. I could give the NRA money, who could either directly spend it or give it to a candidate or party. But they couldn't give it to some other group who would pass it on.
"Without campaign finance^H^H^Hspeech regulation (and regulation political money^H^H^H speech, etc), the more money you have, the more say you have in our political system."
Yes, groups and individuals with more money get a bigger megaphone. But they is us. I'm an NRA member, we can't speak 60 days before an election. I'm an EFF member, we can't speak 60 days before an election. If I (individually or joining in a group) can't speak 60 days before an election, what the hell does free speech mean? Dan Rather can speak all he wants to, what is HIS campaign limits?
> very damaging to the ideals of democracy.
Democracy is a stupid idea, which is why our Founding fathers gave us a Constituitional Republic. Democracy means 51 oeple can vote to pee in the other 49's corn flakes and if Democracy is a good idea those 49 not only have to sit there and take it they have to agree that it was a fair vote and it is right that they drink the piss.
> Also, I would be careful to single out Democrats as you do. > McCain-Feingold was led by a Republican and a Democrat, lest you > forget, and it was passed by a Republican House.
Sen. McCain is what is known as a RINO (Republican In Name Only). Being a hawk on international policy and fairly pro-life he understands he would be at best a back bencher were he to flip to the Democrats, but by staying a Republican he can be a media darling. How often do the sunday shows pair him with another liberal and call it balanced? More of the press corps supported his run for the Republican nomination than probably support Kerry. Because his nomination would have meant a Democratic win regardless of who actually won.
And yes, while I did frag Schrub for signing that crap I should have stopped to slag the spineless wonders in Congress who also knew better. But I don't think it is exagerating that the big push for McCain Fiengold was from the D side.
Me, am a fundamentalist when it comes to the Constituition. What part of "Congress shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed" do so many peopel seem to have trouble understanding?
Because once we started down the dark path with the first limits on the 1st Amendment in the post Watergate era this sort of mission creep was foretold. Regulating campaign finance IS regulating Free Speech. Democrats refuse to understand and keep proposing more laws when the previous ones fail. Shrub is equally (hell, moreso) culpable this time because he KNEW it was wrong and signed it anyway for coldly political purposes.
But let me say this. I will never submit to any law regulating my speech, and when the time comes that the Democrats pass a law that does infringe my speech, and it gets upheld, that is the day I use the 2nd Amendment to invoke that most primal right so well expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government."
> By calling for the end of the Democratic party in part or in whole, > you are saying America should be a dictatorship,
Not at all, just because I believe the Democratic party, as it is currently lead, is imnicial to American ideals doesn't mean i advocate one party rule. Parties have come and gone in the past, another would most likely replace it. For that matter, given my own preferences the Republican party would be next to get thrashed at the polls. I'l like nothing better than to see the Libertarian wing of the Republican party break out and join their more left leaning kin in the LP, but that ain't practical so long as the Democratic Socialists are a few percentage points from victory.
> I'll stretch is a bit, but not far, and suppose you consider anyone > who would question the President or voice dissent of the US > Government to be a traitor.
Not at all, I only call traitors a traitor. Seeing as John Forbes Kerry committed an overt act of treason on live TV (lending aid and comfort to an enemy while actual combat was occuring, by speaking what he had to know at the time were falsehoods but ALL should know now he did advance the enemy cause and directly caused additional torture of American POWs) I certainly feel justified in calling your probable candidate a traitor. That does not make you one automatically, only a misguided fool.
There is a world of difference between disagreeing with your government and becoming a traitor. Hell, I disagree with at least half of what shrubbie has done.
> I think you would have fit in quite well in Nazi Germany.
And with that I call Godwin's Law on thee and sign off.
> Actually there is a lot of evidence that democracy can reduce economic growth...
>...mired in democratic socialism
And what the heck does "democratic socialism" have to do with Freedom?
As for your mention of property rights in Russia today, well they aren't yet doing a very good job in the Freedom dept now are they? You need the rule of law as a precondition for liberty and they ain't got it. But they are trying and with a little help could still pull it together.
> I don't agree that you can force a political freedom onto a nation.
There is compelling evidence to the contrary. Germany and Japan were both totalitarian regimes that were taught from scratch how to be a representive republics and over fifty years later are still generally free countries. Yes Japan alightly reverted to form with a bit of an authoritarian nature and Germany slid back towards Socialism (along with most of Europe and to a lesser degree the US) but are hanging in there pretty good. If we can tell the Democrats to STFU long enough to build up Iraq and Afganistan I am confident we can bring them into a state where they are a flavor of free with perhaps a slight tang of theocracy remaining.
> the former soviet union is not a free democratic country any more > once again.
Not suprising. Those peoples never had any cultural history of self governing instituitions to revert to and since they fell from inside instead of losing a war, the West never had a chance to rebuild them. But I do think they still have a chance to come into the light, and a better one if we in the West would step up and help them out.
Yes they can. And if the average person had even 25% of the average US income the next generation wouldn't be much larger than the current 6b and the one after would be smaller.
> With 6 billion people on this planet, global freedom is a luxury we > cannot afford.
Unless you are posting from a third world country at an Internet Cafe you are one selfish bastard. And have a mindset that scares the hell out of me. Freedom is the birthright of EVERY SENTIENT BEING, not just Americans.
Slashdot Mirror
> I think it is morally repugnant of you to break our agreement and decompile.
While you are welcome to your delusions, but out here in the real world we have some things called laws. Specifically the Uniform Commercial Code and the Copyright laws.
You will note that I excepted commercial licenses, since those are actual signed contracts and are legally binding.
According to the Uniform Commercial Code if goods are exchanged in regular trade there can't be strings attached; i.e. if it looks like a sale it IS a sale. If I buy a copy of Microsoft Windows from Newegg.com I did just that, I BOUGHT a copy of Windows. That means I can do anything with that copy, including read it. I can even copy it in whole or in part so long as such activity falls under the backup exception written into the law or by Fair Use. Of course any other reproduction is forbidden by the artifical monopoly rights granted to the author by copyright. While I have a lot of problems with how copyrights are currently operated (eternal instead of "limited times" as prescribed by the Constituition) I don't have a major problem with that limitation.
But think about it, what you are saying is that you can sell me a copyrighted work that I am forbidden to read myself. What a load of fetid dingos kidneys! Ford can't forbid me from taking apart a Caddy and not only making, but SELLING plans; but you think your algorithms are so freaking special that you want the government to put me in jail for the crime of reading them? What are you smoking?
Good review, but I have one major nit to pick.
What ethical problems? Decompiling is perfectly moral and ethical. Whether it is illegal is a seperate and, for me, almost irelevant issue. If I legally own a copyrighted work I am allowed to read it, period and end of story. Corporate licences excepted, software is SOLD, not licensed despite the scary words on the box and the dread click through EULA.
Hell, I learned assembly by writing a disassembler (in BASIC) and reading the Microsoft BASIC roms, then later reading the commented listings that ran in Color Computer Magazine. (TO avoid a copyright fight, and because M$ refused to grant them permission, CCM ran only the comments and memory locations, leaving the reader to run their own dissassembly for the opcodes.)
The only ethical problem would be lifting the code and reusing it without permission and I think we all know that is wrong.
Yea! Glad the slashot poll wasn't reflective of the general population. So now we can get back to tech threads for another four years. ok, except for a ten minute hate every morning against: (pick one at random)
1. GWB
2. ASHCROFT! (boo hiss)
3. The PATRIOT Act (the horror!)
4. Iraq
Ok, so nothing has really changed.
> Still, Tanenbaum doesn't really make reference to that on his site; he
> acts as if the mere act of running electoral-vote.com somehow helps the
> Democratic candidate. That's the part I don't understand.
It is all about making a Kerry victory expected but not so certain as to cause the faithful to lose the motivation to get out and vote. This does several things that helps Kerry.
1. It gets the faithful to the polls. If the numbers favor Bush very much the faithful lose hope and stay home.
2. A lot of polls showing a Kerry win are needed for their stated strategy of declaring victory as soon as the polls close, under their new theory that "If every voter is allowed to vote and every vote is counted, we win. Therefore a loss means election fraud and we unleash the lawyers to correct the injustice."
3. Polls showing a Kerry win will depress the Bush vote.
Sounds like Mr Tanenbaum, like most academics of today, is all too ready to sell out his professional ethics for political gain. Go hit realclearpolitics.com if you want maps derived from actual polling data.
His electoral map is so different from any other map I have yet seen it must be discarded as a statistical outlier. Besides eliminating most of the leaning Bush states, this asshat has CA as only 'leaning Kerry' (Obviously to ensure the Pro Kerry forces in CA get frightened to the polls.) Does ANYONE who follows politics believe for a nanosecond Bush could carry the People's Republic of California? Only in a 40plus state blowout scenario, and I don't see that happening this year.
> Dish's encryption scheme is modified enough from standard Nagravision
> that the Nagra access cards compatible with PC-based DVB-S receivers
> won't work with Dish.
Actually, from what I read it WOULD work if Dish would 'marry' one of their access cards to your DVB-S card. But they won't sell a card programmed for any box that doesn't have one of their serial numbers for fear of pissing off their content providers. Those providers don't mind Dishplayer because they ultimatly control it by being able to yank Dish's strings just like they are dictating to Tivo.
> ...no party with a truly libertarian platform is going to command a
> quorum in the United States in the forseeable future.
Exactly correct. So in the scenario of the Libertarians becoming ascendent they would be 'selling out' more and more principles to gain supporters. But Libertarian thought would still be the underlying principles guiding the party.
Think of the current Democratic Party as a good example; all of the most influencial thinkers are Socialists and that philosophy, limited by what is politically possible, guides most of the Party's actions even though they can't even use that word in public. Their hope is that over time they will influence public opinion such that their views become mainstream enough to be able to 'come out'. Considering the great progress they have made over the last century it is quite probable their day would have already come had it not been for Ronald Reagan. Ideas like redistribution of income, entitlements, group rights and an all powerful Federal government are firmly entrenched in the popular culture even with their party being in decline for the last twenty plus years.
The point being that a Libertarian Party popular enough to actually made it to power would be one that wouldn't govern anything like what WE think of as Libertarian. But if they continued in power any length of time they would subtly alter the fabric of American society such that more and more Libertarian ideas would be politically possible.
> The problem is not Democrats and Republicans; it's that there are
> only two parties. It doesn't really matter what those two parties are.
Doesn't matter. We already have more than two parties as a practical matter. But to govern you have to have a coalition that adds to a majority. So we have an uneasy alliance between groups who don't really like one another, but know they need each other to govern. The groups not in the governing coalition end up mostly together in the out of piwer party. Really, what do Randite Libertarians and Falwell Fundies have in common other than sharing a few more common interests than either can find in the other camp? Same for tree hugging enviros and union thugs over in the other camp.
We tend to have two parties basically split over some overarching BIG issue and then most of the other issues fall out in one camp or the other with a few that just don't map to the current split. Right now that BIG issue is Capitalism vs Socialism. So the Fundies naturally fall into the other camp, not because they are big fans of Capitalism but because they can't stand the "godless commies". New parties tend to appear when that BIG issue changes.
The Republican party appeared when THE issue became "Does the concept of Federalism insulate a group of States against the determined will of another group of States. Specifically over the slavery issue." We all know who won that debate and the Federal Government has been out of control ever since, because at it's core the Republican are founded on belief in Federal power as much as or perhaps more than the Democrats, despite rhetoric to the contrary.
> and wasn't discharged until 1970
And by all appearances wasn't HONORABLY discharged until President Carter's general amensty in 1977. Of course we can't be sure since Kerry still refuses to sign the release for his military records to be made public.
> And, voila, after all your hard work, after all those votes that
> sacrificed immediate advantage for the long-term hopes, you're right
> back where you started: two parties, both of them sprawling coalitions
> that don't really please anybody all that much, but please about half
> the population juuuust enough.
Yes, but they won't be the SAME two parties. Not just the names will change, scramble things up badly and the new parties that emerge will not resemble the ones that exist now. Who knows how the new parties would coalese, much would depend on just what sort of third party manages to break out, they will accrete similarly aligned groups from both parties as they grow, leaving the remains to band together to fight the new party.
Right now we are locked into a Socialism & the Nanny State vs Capitalism & Moralistic Daddy State battle but, for example, if the Greens emerged as the new Party to beat the primary battle of ideas in American politics would take on a decidedly more environmentalist focus. Of course the existing battle would still continue, only more muted. Most Socialists are Green, and most hard core Greens are Socialist so at first glance it would appear little had changed. But under a Green vs Industry & Property Rights matchup the major issues would tend to reduce the position of big labor, possibly even pushing them to the 'other' camp. (See the first glimerings of this in the ANWAR dispute with some labor leaders in support of drilling as a pure jobs issue.)
On the other hand, if the Libertarians ascended they would acrete in a large chunk of the free market Republicans and that portion of the Democrats who still espouse Civil Rights as an individual concern (as opposed to the race baiters and demogogs who push the false religion of group rights). This would leave the rump end of both existing parties to make common cause somehow. So moral crusading socialists vs Libertarians?
Point being that even if a we ended up with two parties again, fighting for a third party is a worthwhile goal because even if you 'lose' in the sense of not keeping three parties or even keeping your new party 100% pure to its original goals, you CAN drasticaly change the politcal landscape. See what happened when the Republicans emerged for a good example.
> The electoral system is unfairly biased in Bush's favor,
You say that like it is a bad thing. On the other hand I understand the electoral college and think it serves a very useful purpose. That being to deny CA and NY the ability to determine just about any election and dictate their perverted views on the rest of us out here in flyover country.
Without the stabilizing influence of the electoral college we would almost certainly have had another succession attempt by some or all of the rural states. Not that in and of itself a breakup of the US would be a bad thing.
> based on what?
Based on an on the record statement he made back in the Vietnam era that "US force should only be used in service of UN goals." which he has never disavowed or in any way ran away from. Kerry doesn't flip flop on everything. Plus we have his vote on Gulf War I when he voted against the use of force even WITH the UN's approval. Hell, we even had Syria on board for Gulf War I and that didn't pass Kerry's "Global Test".
> When a judge strikes down a long-standing law because it violates the
> constitution of their state or country, is that activism? Is it bad?
No it isn't bad or activist. So long as the law was actually unlawful. I.e. If the Supremes got a wild hair and started trashing whole Agencies on Amendment IX and Amendment X grounds I'd have little problem with it because they would only be doing what their predecessors would have done had they been fulfilling their Oath of Office. But if they legislate from the bench they are ALWAYS wrong, even if they pass a law I happen to agree with. Because in the longterm; good can never result from actions poisoned by evil.
> Judges have the responsibility for determining whether the laws of a
> state are consistent with its consistution.
No argument. However in the MA 'Gay Marriage' case this isn't what happened. The Supremem Court reached up it's collective ass and decided a Right should exist, one which existed nowhere else before they created it, and that the Legislature must PASS a law to create this new Right they discovered. Big difference. If a Legislature can be told to pass a law, it really isn't soverign over it's area of responsibility anymore now is it?
This is basic Civics 101 stuff guys, Legislatures pass laws, the Executive enforces them and the Judiciary interprets them and can throw one out should a Law prove to be incompatible with the Constituition. But Congressmen cannot arrest those who violate the laws they pass, the executive can't pass a law or imprison people without a judge's OK. It is called checks and balances and it is one of the cornerstones of Western Civilization. I ain't willing to throw that out something that important to make points with any special interest, especially one as irelevant as the fairies. Democrats apparently are so willing, but I'm no longer sure most of them even BELIEVE in the Republican form of government any longer. Just watch how many of them get all misty eyed over tyrants like Castro or Arafat if you need convincing.
> I think that few state legislatures at this point would pass a law
> fully outlawing abortion either.
If Roe V. Wade gets reversed things revert to the way they were. Most states still have bans on the books, they are just currently null and void because the Supremes passed a constituitional amendment outta their asses. When that gets flushed those existing laws will make it illegal in most states. My point is that very few legistatures will be able to muster the votes to actually PASS a law legalizing abortion. CA and NY would obviously do it post haste, but I seem to recall that they had already legalized it pre Roe.
Which is the same situation the homosexuals are in, even the MA legislature would have found it politically suicidal to redefine marriage to please a fringe constituancy by pissing off a majority of voters. SO they allowed the courts to do it and then sat back passive and 'allowed' it. Had they ACTUALLY opposed it they could have simply impeached the judges for such an obvious breach of their oaths of office. (A judge CANNOT order a legislature to pass a law, QED.)
> If Bush is re-elected and the time comes to put new Justices on the
> Supreme Court what is he going to do?
He will appoint strict constructionists in the Rhenquist, Scalia and Thomas mold. They will interpret the Constituition and Laws as they exist instead of legislating their own beliefs from the bench. Which is what they are supposed to be doing.
> He's going to put judges on their that are sympathetic to his (not his
> party's) own personal goal of bringing religious morality back into this
> country.
Actually, most Republicans agree with his moral positions. But only Democrats want judges legislating ANY morality from the bench. All we want is judges who WON'T impose their morals. And if we could get a few who could read that would be just peachy. How hard is "Congress shall pass no law...." or "...shall not be infringed." to understand!
> Don't be silly, Kerry may not like Texas, but it should be able to
> survive even if he wins.
I'm not joking. Kerry and most Dems think of the War on Terror like the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty, i.e. a metaphor. It isn't. The West is now locked in a steel cage deathmatch with Radical Islam for world supremacy. Bush might be an idiot on a lot of issues, but on that one issue he 'gets it' and more importantly has the right ideas about how to win. A bit wobbly at times on the implementation details, but show me a war without some major cock ups.
> Bush on marriage: "Marriage should be a union between a man and a woman."
> Kerry on marriage: "Marriage should be a union between an man and a woman."
Except everyone who actually follows politics knows there is a big difference. Democrats use the courts to pass policies they know they could never be elected by supporting. So while Kerry wouldn't say anything in support, he would happily sit by while activist judges (of the sort he would be appointing) rammed it down our throats. Just like with abortion. To this day there is zero chance Congress would vote to legalize abortion but Democrats depend on unelected Judges to do their dirty work for them. Bush on the other hand came out in support of taking the issue away from the courts and sends up strict constructionists who don't legislate from the bench.
As for oil, what else CAN we do. Kick their ass and take their gas? I know that is the popular myth among the Deanics for both Gulf Wars but it just ain't so. The Free Flow of Oil at Market Prices is what the Republicans fought for, and that is what we have. The uncertainty in the Middle East, political instability in Migeria and China's newfound appitite for oil has put a premium on oil prices.
> mostly of the Purple vs. Green variety
Excellent B5 episode, but the analogy doesn't fit.
No differnces between these two candidates? Ok, I don't expect deep political analysis from a tech columnist anymore than I expect a clear understanding of tech from a political one, but Jesus Tapdancing Christ, you can't get wider policy differences than you have this year.
Although I do give credit for his well researched analysis of the tech policies of each candidate. Even though Kerry hasn't done squat on the issues in his two decades in the Senate, by vigorously enforcing DMCA and working to exoort it, Bush is causeing harm. If Kerry could have passed the smell test I might have voted for him on the least harm principle.
Unfortunatly I'm convinced the Republic can't survive a Kerry win and that while Bush is screwing up a lot of things pretty badly, we can survive another term with him at the helm.
> Your Dan Rather comment is just trolling.
No, it is the very heart of the problem. If you really don't think Rather is biased I'd bet good money you are in the camp that says "Faux News" when referring to Fox News Channel. Who decides who is a "legitimate journalist" and who is illegally electioneering in that 60 day blackout period before an election? Eventually, if we continue down your dark path, it will have to end up with the FEC licensing of journalists; and if you can say with a straight face that there will then be any shred left of the 1st Amendment then there really isn't any point in continuing the conversation because we are using the same words but they don't mean the same things.
> Nor should you be able to advertise for corruption. Giving money to
> parties could be thought of as a form of corruption.
Why do so many people seem to get this backwards? I don't contribute to a candidate in the hope he/she will change their position to one I agree with. I give to candidates who I agree with. So do large donors. Do you think Emily's List could give a pro-lifer a sack of cash and expect them to become pro-death in exchange? Not a chance. They give sacks of cash to candidates who support their position. People give Emily's List the cash because they support what they are doing. If some rich dude like Soros gives bigger sacks of cash that is OK so long as everyone knows he is doing it and where it is going. Limits are never going to be the answer, mandatory disclosure is the way to go.
That and limiting the money laundering that currently goes on. Limit things to one or perhaps two middle men. I.e. I could give the NRA money, who could either directly spend it or give it to a candidate or party. But they couldn't give it to some other group who would pass it on.
Let me translate what you wrote....
"Without campaign finance^H^H^Hspeech regulation (and regulation political money^H^H^H speech, etc), the more money you have, the more say you have in our political system."
Yes, groups and individuals with more money get a bigger megaphone. But they is us. I'm an NRA member, we can't speak 60 days before an election. I'm an EFF member, we can't speak 60 days before an election. If I (individually or joining in a group) can't speak 60 days before an election, what the hell does free speech mean? Dan Rather can speak all he wants to, what is HIS campaign limits?
> very damaging to the ideals of democracy.
Democracy is a stupid idea, which is why our Founding fathers gave us a Constituitional Republic. Democracy means 51 oeple can vote to pee in the other 49's corn flakes and if Democracy is a good idea those 49 not only have to sit there and take it they have to agree that it was a fair vote and it is right that they drink the piss.
> Also, I would be careful to single out Democrats as you do.
> McCain-Feingold was led by a Republican and a Democrat, lest you
> forget, and it was passed by a Republican House.
Sen. McCain is what is known as a RINO (Republican In Name Only). Being a hawk on international policy and fairly pro-life he understands he would be at best a back bencher were he to flip to the Democrats, but by staying a Republican he can be a media darling. How often do the sunday shows pair him with another liberal and call it balanced? More of the press corps supported his run for the Republican nomination than probably support Kerry. Because his nomination would have meant a Democratic win regardless of who actually won.
And yes, while I did frag Schrub for signing that crap I should have stopped to slag the spineless wonders in Congress who also knew better. But I don't think it is exagerating that the big push for McCain Fiengold was from the D side.
Me, am a fundamentalist when it comes to the Constituition. What part of "Congress shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed" do so many peopel seem to have trouble understanding?
Because once we started down the dark path with the first limits on the 1st Amendment in the post Watergate era this sort of mission creep was foretold. Regulating campaign finance IS regulating Free Speech. Democrats refuse to understand and keep proposing more laws when the previous ones fail. Shrub is equally (hell, moreso) culpable this time because he KNEW it was wrong and signed it anyway for coldly political purposes.
But let me say this. I will never submit to any law regulating my speech, and when the time comes that the Democrats pass a law that does infringe my speech, and it gets upheld, that is the day I use the 2nd Amendment to invoke that most primal right so well expressed in the Declaration of Independence.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government."
> By calling for the end of the Democratic party in part or in whole,
> you are saying America should be a dictatorship,
Not at all, just because I believe the Democratic party, as it is currently lead, is imnicial to American ideals doesn't mean i advocate one party rule. Parties have come and gone in the past, another would most likely replace it. For that matter, given my own preferences the Republican party would be next to get thrashed at the polls. I'l like nothing better than to see the Libertarian wing of the Republican party break out and join their more left leaning kin in the LP, but that ain't practical so long as the Democratic Socialists are a few percentage points from victory.
> I'll stretch is a bit, but not far, and suppose you consider anyone
> who would question the President or voice dissent of the US
> Government to be a traitor.
Not at all, I only call traitors a traitor. Seeing as John Forbes Kerry committed an overt act of treason on live TV (lending aid and comfort to an enemy while actual combat was occuring, by speaking what he had to know at the time were falsehoods but ALL should know now he did advance the enemy cause and directly caused additional torture of American POWs) I certainly feel justified in calling your probable candidate a traitor. That does not make you one automatically, only a misguided fool.
There is a world of difference between disagreeing with your government and becoming a traitor. Hell, I disagree with at least half of what shrubbie has done.
> I think you would have fit in quite well in Nazi Germany.
And with that I call Godwin's Law on thee and sign off.
> Actually there is a lot of evidence that democracy can reduce economic growth ...
...mired in democratic socialism
>
And what the heck does "democratic socialism" have to do with Freedom?
As for your mention of property rights in Russia today, well they aren't yet doing a very good job in the Freedom dept now are they? You need the rule of law as a precondition for liberty and they ain't got it. But they are trying and with a little help could still pull it together.
> I don't agree that you can force a political freedom onto a nation.
There is compelling evidence to the contrary. Germany and Japan were both totalitarian regimes that were taught from scratch how to be a representive republics and over fifty years later are still generally free countries. Yes Japan alightly reverted to form with a bit of an authoritarian nature and Germany slid back towards Socialism (along with most of Europe and to a lesser degree the US) but are hanging in there pretty good. If we can tell the Democrats to STFU long enough to build up Iraq and Afganistan I am confident we can bring them into a state where they are a flavor of free with perhaps a slight tang of theocracy remaining.
> the former soviet union is not a free democratic country any more
> once again.
Not suprising. Those peoples never had any cultural history of self governing instituitions to revert to and since they fell from inside instead of losing a war, the West never had a chance to rebuild them. But I do think they still have a chance to come into the light, and a better one if we in the West would step up and help them out.
> Unfortunately, the entire world cannot be free,
Yes they can. And if the average person had even 25% of the average US income the next generation wouldn't be much larger than the current 6b and the one after would be smaller.
> With 6 billion people on this planet, global freedom is a luxury we
> cannot afford.
Unless you are posting from a third world country at an Internet Cafe you are one selfish bastard. And have a mindset that scares the hell out of me. Freedom is the birthright of EVERY SENTIENT BEING, not just Americans.