Several states had higher rates of disregarded votes than Florida. In particular, New York and Illinois had about twice as much, percentage-wise. What happened in Florida was indicative of what happened many other places in the country; it just got the publicity because it was the pivotal state in that close election.
There are other methods. From 2001 to Babylon 5, a few have gotten away with using rotation to achieve gravity, and then there's the idea of uperating under a constant thrust so that "up" is your direction of travel. If you want to get out of doing weightless scenes, there are alternatives that only take a couple of lines in the script without resorting to technobabble, and it's not like your average SF TV series can afford to film in zero-G every week.
Incorrect. Read Article III and Amendments IX and X. The Constitution does not have to enumerate a right for us to have it. It does have to enumerate a power in order for the government to have it.
The Constitution places limitations on government, not on individual rights.
The rights given to individuals by the Constitution
It always brings me down to see lawyers--especially ones as bright and honest as this one seems to be--making this mistake.
The Constitution grants nothing to us. It acknowledges that we have the rights, and those rights can't be taken away by the government. But it doesn't give us those rights, and, as the 9th Amendment clearly states, isn't meant to limit our rights in any way whatsoever.
The Constitution is a limitation on government, not the people.
The timber companies have nottaken good care of their lands. They have cut all the trees off and now need more trees. Of course the only trees left are on govt land (because the govt actually took care of those lands instead of turning all the trees into profit).
Now, that simply is not true, as anyone who takes any time to look around can see. It's the government land that's in terrible shape. And this new claim of yours contradicts what you said earlier when you agreed that 95% of pollution takes place on government land.
Your argument isn't even consistent, let alone valid.
A totalitarian dictatorship is ultimately accountable to its population, because if the population enters into a revolution the dictator will get spitted.
Of course this is true but its not terribly helpful.
It's also an invalid comparison. With a bad government, you have no easy options. Either get enough people together to start a revolution (resulting, regardless of the outcome, in extreme loss of life) or move to another country, which may have the same problems.
With a corporation, you simply stop dealing with them. Either get the product from a competitor, or do without. And with competition, each corporation has an incentive to treat its customers the best way possible. If they don't, the customer can easily go elsewhere. Not so with government.
but for the life of me I can not understand the gleeful joy which libertarians show when they tell us why a corporate oligarchy is so much better than a democracy.
Probably has something to do with the fact that we don't want a corporate oligarchy. We want freedom. Why does that seem to be such a difficult concept for some people?
The government does not allow them it's illegal. The corporations pollute because the govt does not have the resources to police it's property properly.
That's a naive claim. Numerous times the government has given the OK to corporations to pollute its own land because the corporation is politically connected. Okay, it may techincally be illegal, but how much good does that really do us?
Besides to suggest that the govt is evil and the polluters are good because the govt is unable to stop them from poisoning the land and water is just sick!
I never made that claim. Try arguing what I said instead of arguing what you think I said.
Well this is a flat out lie. If you don't believe me watch how much the logging companies will scream when you suggest an end to logging on govt lands.
Far from supporting the notion in your first sentence, your second sentence refutes it. When the logging companies log on government land they don't have to worry about pollution etc. because they're not worried about the future value of the property. With their own property, they are, so they make sure to keep it nice.
As long as they can cut taxpayer subsidized timber from the the federal lands they don't have to practice sustainable forestry.
And you're just continuing to make my point for me. They do practice it on their own land because it's in their interest to do so. It's not in their interest to look out for the value of government land.
If the ranchers and the loggers took care of their own land they would not need public lands would they?
This "conclusion" is completely unsubstantiated by your arguments. The companies don't "need" public land, but they want to use it because they don't have to worry about its future value, and therefore are unrestricted in the cost cuts they can make with regards to its use.
It's like the Aesop fable about the sun and the wind. You want to reduce pollution, then quit making it within the companies' interests to pollute. Make them pollute their own land, or someone else's who's going to want just compensation, and notice how quickly they'll shape up.
Of course the pollution occurs on govt property the business is not going to dump toxic waste on it's own property is it?
That is precisely the point! And they're not going to dump it on your property, either, because you'll take action against them. The government allows them to pollute without repercussions, so pollute they do.
Natural resources--even ones held by mills, logging companies, etc.--tend to be in much better condition than government-owned properties, because the government has no interest in the value of the land. So they let whoever has political connections pollute it.
Also if liberterians are for holding corporations responsible perhaps you can take this opportunity to explain just exacly how this would occur withoout some big bad govt to wield a stick?
The government provides the services that allow you to a) defend yourself against force and fraud, and b) seek retribution against any company or individual who actually does such to you.
1) I never said "government-less."
2) Most of the things you mentioned are being taken care of by private companies much more efficiently than government; in fact, government is just making them worse. The rest are legitimate functions of government.
Y'know, it's one thing that this guy lied about what I said and pretended my argument was something different entirely...but he got MODDED UP???? WTF????????
The point is, government would be restrained from doing so. No party would be able to do any such thing because the government would be forced to obey the Constitution, and the Constitution does not give the government any authority to pass special laws that favor big business.
No, there would be no "power vacuum." YOU would have the power to live your life the way YOU see fit, not as any Democrat or Republican thinks you should live your life.
The government should ONLY step in when someone--be it individual or corporation--initiates force or fraud against another. Other than that, YOU MAKE THE CHOICE.
Bullshit. No one asked me if it was okay to region encode DVDs or pull other MPAA shit.
Well, the MPAA isn't a corporation. It's a conglomeration of corporations that shouldn't exist as it stifles competition and the free enterprise system. Anyone here remember why it exists? That's right--the government!
And who enforces the region coding? Who's stopping manufacturers from making multi-region DVD players (and don't you think they'd love to sell them to you)? Who's stopping 2600.com from linking to DeCSS? Again--the government!
As for the taxes issue, the government is currently taking 48% of the national income in taxes. By comparison, our Founding Fathers said if the tax rate ever went above 10% it was time for another revolution.
Methings you seriously need to look around at this site. It may just open your eyes. Our government has ZERO interest in listening to us and improving things for us. We have far greater effect on the corporations than we do the government.
That must be a great comfort to the residents of such places as Love Canal and Bhopal.
Love Canal was no problem while it was privately owned. Then the local government got their hands on it and built on the property, despite vociferous warnings by Occidental (formerly Hooker Chemicals and Plastics) about the dangers of doing so. The fault is the government's, not the company's. There were also no reported illnesses due to toxic waste before a reporter exposed the existance of the site, and even afterwards all illnesses attributed to the toxic waste were well within national illness rates, so it's doubtful the waste contributed much if at all to them.
Also, the Bhopal incident was an accident that was the fault of a company already following government safety measures, who are voluntarily taking additional measures--as are other companies--to make sure that such an accident never happens again.
You seriously need to educate yourself on who the real villains are.
The government must at least follow the pretense of examination by a free press. Ultimately we get a chance to throw them all out if we don't like what we're doing.
Oh, yes, that's just worked wonders so far...except for the hideous ballot access requirements and campaign funding limits that challengers have to put up with while the current rulemakers get millions in taxpayer dollars to fund their campaigns...
Contrast that with corporations, which are accountable only to their shareholders. If you're not one of them, you're shit out of luck.
Wrong. Corporations are ultimately accountable to the consumer. If the consumer stops buying their products, the corporation must change their business model to meet their needs or go out of business. Remember Divx?
Government also has to weigh the total good of the people when it makes policy.
Would that were the case. All government has to do is weigh the good of politically-connected companies and individuals.
This includes public health and the environment. A corporation isn't bound to consider any of these things.
Again incorrect. A corporation must consider the effects on public health because they'll be held responsible for it. They also must consider the environment because they're worried about the future value of their own property. The government has no such concern. Are you aware that over 95% of our country's pollution takes place on government property?
They'll cheerfully put more mercury in your food if it makes them an extra dollar.
How bogus can you get? That most certainly won't make them any money because they'll be paying out the ass from all the resulting lawsuits!
Individuals are answerable to the government, and we call that "the rule of law". Yet when someone says that corporations should answer to the goverment too, people like yourself gleefully throw themselves down the slippery slope and start tossing around words like "fascism".
I'd love to know where you get this from. There's a world of difference between holding organizations accountable (which Libertarians certainly want to do) and turning the force of government against the corporations, which only makes matters worse.
And then we will all have to go start a new planet just to prevent the the glorious self regulated industry from implanting chips in our asses to know where we are, what we are doing, and with who.
Taco, corporations cannot force anything on an unwilling person. Only the force of law can do that.
We complain about the problems "big corporations" are causing by trying to prohibit P2P sharing, DeCSS, etc., yet the thing that makes this possible--the DMCA--was an act of Congress.
Big corporations can intrude on our rights only if the government passes laws allowing them to, or giving them loopholes to wriggle through so that they can get away with it. The solution is to elect a Libertarian government. Libertarians would remove the laws that enable them to do harm while restoring the barriers preventing them from inflicting force or fraud on the public.
The Constitution places restrictions on the government, not the rights of the people.
How many of the current US population understand that.
Far too few, I'm afraid. Far too few.
Re:Not that different from what we have now
on
Is Law Copyrighted?
·
· Score: 1
A law needs to be absolutely specific - otherwise you'd end up with different decisions on the same case with different judges.
But again, that's the situation we have now. Besides, something can be specific without resorting to legalese. If anything, the legalese tends to hide loopholes that certain individuals or companies could use to wriggle out of having to obey the law.
Secondly, natural language changes over time. Laws written now in natural language will be as incomprehensible in 100 years
The Constitution was written in natural language, but after two centuries it still reads fairly easily. The laws we're passing now, however, are incomprehensible even to most educated people.
Bottom line: How can you ask people to obey laws they don't understand?
I agree that this whole thing is stupid, but noone is granted a "right" to know the laws that they live under. Find in the Constitution where you're given a right to know the laws. Many legal arguments like this seem to rest on people thinking they have have "rights" that they don't have.
Read the 9th and 10th Amendments. Just because it isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean you don't have the right (9th Amendment). OTOH, if it's not mentioned in the Constitution, it is not a power given to the government (10th Amendment).
The Constitution places restrictions on the government, not the rights of the people.
Not that different from what we have now
on
Is Law Copyrighted?
·
· Score: 3
The only difference between this and the rest of the legal system is the copyright aspect. The complexity of the legal system means that ordinary citizens don't have a chance of understanding them. Even lawyers have to specialize. No one can know all the law, but we're all supposed to follow it.
If you're going to write your Congressman, put it in the form of a "right to understand the law" issue. Not only would that mean free dissemination sans copyright, it would also mean that acts would have to be plainly worded.
The usual rebuttal to this idea is that lawyers and judges could interpret the law in any way they wish. But isn't that the system we have now? The only difference is, regular Joe Blows have to take the word of the lawyers and judges. If the laws were plainly worded, we'd be better able to form opinions on which judges are following the law and which are following their own agenda, and be able to vote the latter out of office.
I think one of the things that makes RD so good is that, since they're a comedy series, they don't take themselves so damn seriously. They can concentrate on telling good stories instead of trying to make "a very special episode" week after week after week...
Slashdot Mirror
So remove people from the equation. Machines and computers don't have political affiliations.
Several states had higher rates of disregarded votes than Florida. In particular, New York and Illinois had about twice as much, percentage-wise. What happened in Florida was indicative of what happened many other places in the country; it just got the publicity because it was the pivotal state in that close election.
There are other methods. From 2001 to Babylon 5, a few have gotten away with using rotation to achieve gravity, and then there's the idea of uperating under a constant thrust so that "up" is your direction of travel. If you want to get out of doing weightless scenes, there are alternatives that only take a couple of lines in the script without resorting to technobabble, and it's not like your average SF TV series can afford to film in zero-G every week.
This decision is A Very Good Thing for protection of our Constitutional rights.
Good that they did this, but it's disheartening that the vote was so close.
The Constitution places limitations on government, not on individual rights.
It always brings me down to see lawyers--especially ones as bright and honest as this one seems to be--making this mistake.
The Constitution grants nothing to us. It acknowledges that we have the rights, and those rights can't be taken away by the government. But it doesn't give us those rights, and, as the 9th Amendment clearly states, isn't meant to limit our rights in any way whatsoever.
The Constitution is a limitation on government, not the people.
Now, that simply is not true, as anyone who takes any time to look around can see. It's the government land that's in terrible shape. And this new claim of yours contradicts what you said earlier when you agreed that 95% of pollution takes place on government land.
Your argument isn't even consistent, let alone valid.
Private companies only care about profits.
Tell that to the Nature Conservancy.
Of course this is true but its not terribly helpful.
It's also an invalid comparison. With a bad government, you have no easy options. Either get enough people together to start a revolution (resulting, regardless of the outcome, in extreme loss of life) or move to another country, which may have the same problems.
With a corporation, you simply stop dealing with them. Either get the product from a competitor, or do without. And with competition, each corporation has an incentive to treat its customers the best way possible. If they don't, the customer can easily go elsewhere. Not so with government.
but for the life of me I can not understand the gleeful joy which libertarians show when they tell us why a corporate oligarchy is so much better than a democracy.
Probably has something to do with the fact that we don't want a corporate oligarchy. We want freedom. Why does that seem to be such a difficult concept for some people?
That's a naive claim. Numerous times the government has given the OK to corporations to pollute its own land because the corporation is politically connected. Okay, it may techincally be illegal, but how much good does that really do us?
Besides to suggest that the govt is evil and the polluters are good because the govt is unable to stop them from poisoning the land and water is just sick!
I never made that claim. Try arguing what I said instead of arguing what you think I said.
Well this is a flat out lie. If you don't believe me watch how much the logging companies will scream when you suggest an end to logging on govt lands.
Far from supporting the notion in your first sentence, your second sentence refutes it. When the logging companies log on government land they don't have to worry about pollution etc. because they're not worried about the future value of the property. With their own property, they are, so they make sure to keep it nice.
As long as they can cut taxpayer subsidized timber from the the federal lands they don't have to practice sustainable forestry.
And you're just continuing to make my point for me. They do practice it on their own land because it's in their interest to do so. It's not in their interest to look out for the value of government land.
If the ranchers and the loggers took care of their own land they would not need public lands would they?
This "conclusion" is completely unsubstantiated by your arguments. The companies don't "need" public land, but they want to use it because they don't have to worry about its future value, and therefore are unrestricted in the cost cuts they can make with regards to its use.
It's like the Aesop fable about the sun and the wind. You want to reduce pollution, then quit making it within the companies' interests to pollute. Make them pollute their own land, or someone else's who's going to want just compensation, and notice how quickly they'll shape up.
That is precisely the point! And they're not going to dump it on your property, either, because you'll take action against them. The government allows them to pollute without repercussions, so pollute they do.
Natural resources--even ones held by mills, logging companies, etc.--tend to be in much better condition than government-owned properties, because the government has no interest in the value of the land. So they let whoever has political connections pollute it.
Also if liberterians are for holding corporations responsible perhaps you can take this opportunity to explain just exacly how this would occur withoout some big bad govt to wield a stick?
The government provides the services that allow you to a) defend yourself against force and fraud, and b) seek retribution against any company or individual who actually does such to you.
1) I never said "government-less." 2) Most of the things you mentioned are being taken care of by private companies much more efficiently than government; in fact, government is just making them worse. The rest are legitimate functions of government.
Y'know, it's one thing that this guy lied about what I said and pretended my argument was something different entirely...but he got MODDED UP???? WTF????????
Doncha just love people who try to pretend your argument is something other than it was?
The point is, government would be restrained from doing so. No party would be able to do any such thing because the government would be forced to obey the Constitution, and the Constitution does not give the government any authority to pass special laws that favor big business.
The government should ONLY step in when someone--be it individual or corporation--initiates force or fraud against another. Other than that, YOU MAKE THE CHOICE.
It's called "freedom." Maybe you've heard of it.
Well, the MPAA isn't a corporation. It's a conglomeration of corporations that shouldn't exist as it stifles competition and the free enterprise system. Anyone here remember why it exists? That's right--the government!
And who enforces the region coding? Who's stopping manufacturers from making multi-region DVD players (and don't you think they'd love to sell them to you)? Who's stopping 2600.com from linking to DeCSS? Again--the government!
As for the taxes issue, the government is currently taking 48% of the national income in taxes. By comparison, our Founding Fathers said if the tax rate ever went above 10% it was time for another revolution.
Methings you seriously need to look around at this site. It may just open your eyes. Our government has ZERO interest in listening to us and improving things for us. We have far greater effect on the corporations than we do the government.
Love Canal was no problem while it was privately owned. Then the local government got their hands on it and built on the property, despite vociferous warnings by Occidental (formerly Hooker Chemicals and Plastics) about the dangers of doing so. The fault is the government's, not the company's. There were also no reported illnesses due to toxic waste before a reporter exposed the existance of the site, and even afterwards all illnesses attributed to the toxic waste were well within national illness rates, so it's doubtful the waste contributed much if at all to them.
Check out this article.
Also, the Bhopal incident was an accident that was the fault of a company already following government safety measures, who are voluntarily taking additional measures--as are other companies--to make sure that such an accident never happens again.
You seriously need to educate yourself on who the real villains are.
Oh, yes, that's just worked wonders so far...except for the hideous ballot access requirements and campaign funding limits that challengers have to put up with while the current rulemakers get millions in taxpayer dollars to fund their campaigns...
Contrast that with corporations, which are accountable only to their shareholders. If you're not one of them, you're shit out of luck.
Wrong. Corporations are ultimately accountable to the consumer. If the consumer stops buying their products, the corporation must change their business model to meet their needs or go out of business. Remember Divx?
Government also has to weigh the total good of the people when it makes policy.
Would that were the case. All government has to do is weigh the good of politically-connected companies and individuals.
This includes public health and the environment. A corporation isn't bound to consider any of these things.
Again incorrect. A corporation must consider the effects on public health because they'll be held responsible for it. They also must consider the environment because they're worried about the future value of their own property. The government has no such concern. Are you aware that over 95% of our country's pollution takes place on government property?
They'll cheerfully put more mercury in your food if it makes them an extra dollar.
How bogus can you get? That most certainly won't make them any money because they'll be paying out the ass from all the resulting lawsuits!
Individuals are answerable to the government, and we call that "the rule of law". Yet when someone says that corporations should answer to the goverment too, people like yourself gleefully throw themselves down the slippery slope and start tossing around words like "fascism".
I'd love to know where you get this from. There's a world of difference between holding organizations accountable (which Libertarians certainly want to do) and turning the force of government against the corporations, which only makes matters worse.
Taco, corporations cannot force anything on an unwilling person. Only the force of law can do that.
We complain about the problems "big corporations" are causing by trying to prohibit P2P sharing, DeCSS, etc., yet the thing that makes this possible--the DMCA--was an act of Congress.
Big corporations can intrude on our rights only if the government passes laws allowing them to, or giving them loopholes to wriggle through so that they can get away with it. The solution is to elect a Libertarian government. Libertarians would remove the laws that enable them to do harm while restoring the barriers preventing them from inflicting force or fraud on the public.
How many of the current US population understand that.
Far too few, I'm afraid. Far too few.
But again, that's the situation we have now. Besides, something can be specific without resorting to legalese. If anything, the legalese tends to hide loopholes that certain individuals or companies could use to wriggle out of having to obey the law.
Secondly, natural language changes over time. Laws written now in natural language will be as incomprehensible in 100 years
The Constitution was written in natural language, but after two centuries it still reads fairly easily. The laws we're passing now, however, are incomprehensible even to most educated people.
Bottom line: How can you ask people to obey laws they don't understand?
Read the 9th and 10th Amendments. Just because it isn't in the Constitution doesn't mean you don't have the right (9th Amendment). OTOH, if it's not mentioned in the Constitution, it is not a power given to the government (10th Amendment).
The Constitution places restrictions on the government, not the rights of the people.
If you're going to write your Congressman, put it in the form of a "right to understand the law" issue. Not only would that mean free dissemination sans copyright, it would also mean that acts would have to be plainly worded.
The usual rebuttal to this idea is that lawyers and judges could interpret the law in any way they wish. But isn't that the system we have now? The only difference is, regular Joe Blows have to take the word of the lawyers and judges. If the laws were plainly worded, we'd be better able to form opinions on which judges are following the law and which are following their own agenda, and be able to vote the latter out of office.
I think one of the things that makes RD so good is that, since they're a comedy series, they don't take themselves so damn seriously. They can concentrate on telling good stories instead of trying to make "a very special episode" week after week after week...