First, it was Ben Franklin that said that. Second, the problem is not with a centralized government, it's with a centralized administration of that government. Try deTocqueville's "Democracy in America", an *excellent* book, and very prescient.
Just because an entity has the *power* to do something to you does *not* make it legal, or right. The constitution does not grant rights, it enumerates them. This is a fundamental difference, and one the founding fathers explicitly expressed in the 9th and 10th amendments. (sorry for the US-centric argument)
Trampling on your rights does not remove them, as our current government proves every day.
Well, there is a legal process for striking a Constitutional right like free speech.
No there is NOT! Your rights are inalienable. Meaning ALWAYS WITH YOU. Just because it is or isn't in the Constitution or any other document doesn't mean that you don't have the right. Rights are not granted by the government, priviledges are. There is a very big difference.
inalienable\In*al"ien*a*ble\, a. [Pref. in- not + alienable: cf. F. inali['e]nable.] Incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred to another; not alienable; as, in inalienable birthright.
they have a right to do whatever they want with the information they gather... Like your cresit card number? How about your doctor? Does *he* have a right to do anything he wants with the information he gathers?
Sure sounds like *you'd* be fun to hang out with! "short tempered woman, ready to take out frustrations on any perceived slight. Grain of salt required. Must be willing to deal with ignorants with ignorance and name calling."
I never said that it was the sole domain of libertarians. It is a core value of libertarians, and using the term disparagingly shows that you don't think much of the belief... but anyway!
I never said that we should *ignore* the supreme court, i just said that they cannot legislate away individual inalienable rights, *by definition*. Im sure they picked that word carefully. No, congress cannot be trusted to pass laws that are constitutional, but neither can the sumpreme court be trusted to ubhold constitutional laws, nor strike down unconstitutional ones. Ethernal vigilance is the price of freedom.
The intent of the framers is not a wildly subjective thing; I believe you have already referenced the federalist papers, which while only written by three men, describe their feelings in great detail. And, even if they meant the 10th to be loosly interpreted, deToqueville has explained why that is, and I dont want to get too far offtopic (too late!)
One can never surrender their rights. They can be taken from someone, but not freely. And your pragmatic view belies your feeling that it's not worth fighting for... and that's what's sad about this country today. Don't you care?
My last paragraph was a (rambling, i admit) description of the bogus argument that it is within the govt's right to do this. Would you complain if they had video cameras in your bedroom, always taping, in order to facilitate the execution of a warrant? Perhaps on charges of violation of a blue law? "We promise not to look at them, unless we have a valid warrant!" This is exactly the same thing, except because it's crypto, no many people understand it. "It doesn't affect me!"
You say "libertarian" like it's a bad thing. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" obviously aren't important to you. Well, they are to me. If you'd like to give them up, that's fine. Just don't ask me to.
I *strongly* disagree that the tenth is largely symbolic. It goes to the core of why we have a federal government in the first place. I am less concerned with later judicial decisions regarding it; rather, what is important to understand is the intent of the framers when they wrote the amendment. Any future weakening of the constitution is invaild from the start, regardless of the Sumpreme Court decisions. You cannot "surrender" your rights. Rights are non-transferable. Definition at http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?db=*&ter m=Inalienable
Back on point: Are we bound by law to install video cameras in our bedrooms? Leave tape recorders in our pockets, so the feds can capture any statement we say? Check in to get travel papers whenever we go anywhere? Not yet, but this is a step doen that road. Am I required to converse in a manner in which I can be eavesdropped? Or do you feel that should be ilegal, and that supreme court rulings have taken away my first amendment rights as well?
This is a clear violation of our fourth amendment right to a warrant that "particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized", as well as the ninth and tenth amendments, which restricts the feds to only the enumerated powers in the constitution. It is telling, however, that on the feds reference site (http://thomas.loc.gov) that the bill of rights, the constitution, and the declaration of independence are listed under "historical documents". They obviously don't have any meaning to today's government.
Umm, since people have been sending email by radio waves for at least 15 years, I think that there is a bit of prior art they would have to overcome. And their transmitter isn't even *pointed* at anything. Seems like a patent for that would be about as useful as a patent for a write-only hard drive.
A friend has a fisher-price child monitor w/an IR camera so he can see his daughter in her dark bedroom... it cost him ~$200 U.S. It works real well, and it also works in the daytime... Although i also know that the US-CDN exchange rate is pretty high...;-)
Well then, you won't mind them implanting a tracking device in your head, then either? How about video cameras in your house? As long as you're not breaking any laws, what's the problem? Nice to know there are still people like you who only care about themselves. Good show!
The british terrorists will suppress the Irish as long as the Irish let them. As soon as the Irish finish the job, they will be free. Not before. Power will not be given away, it must be taken back
Heh heh. That's what the founding fathers thought, too. That's why your vote doesn't really count in the presidential election. Ever heard of a little thing called the "Electoral College"? Same thing goes for our representative democracy. You can't be trusted with your vote.
My point was once it was sold, it is useless to call the company to have them "remove" the data - it's already multiplied out to whereabouts unknown. And good luck trying to do it in the courts; if yours are 1/2 as slow as ours, you'll be long dead before you get any relief that way!:-)
Problem is, there are no measures you can take to protect your privacy from the government. If you want a drivers license, marraige license, or to stay of of jail for income tax evasion, you must tell them alot about you. No way around it. Then they can do whatever they want with it, including sell it to private business, and your screwed.
he he... ho ho... "anytime I like, I can tell these people to delete my data from their database"? You have got to be kidding me! You cannot be that naive... that information is being sold everyday to data warehouses, who in turn sell the data to many interested parties. Even if they agreed to delete your data (which they will *not*, it's too valuable) there's no way they could! It's way out of their hands now, and yours. Is saving $0.10 on Charmin really worth it?
Now, if you're happy doing this, that's fine with me, because it's *your* data. Don't force me to join in, however.
You haven't used the OS in two years, yet you claim that it's "lame"? AIX certainly has it's quirks, but which OS doesn't? And while I agree that CDE leaves something to be desired, it certainly isn't any fault of AIX, as CDE s*cks on all platforms.
If you want to help others, please speak about what you understand; don't just fly off the handle and shout "AIX sucks" without knowing what you're talking about. It's these uninformed rants and prejudices that are making the Open Source movement look like a bunch of crybabies.
he he. It warms my heart to know that the ASCAP is just trying to protect musicians all over the world from meanies, not just to make money for itself!
The property in question is *not* owned by the library, it's owned by *me*. And by *you*. If you want to give away your right to decide how you want your money used, that's fine with me. I'll *not* give up mine.
Slashdot Mirror
First, it was Ben Franklin that said that. Second, the problem is not with a centralized government, it's with a centralized administration of that government. Try deTocqueville's "Democracy in America", an *excellent* book, and very prescient.
Just because an entity has the *power* to do something to you does *not* make it legal, or right. The constitution does not grant rights, it enumerates them. This is a fundamental difference, and one the founding fathers explicitly expressed in the 9th and 10th amendments. (sorry for the US-centric argument)
Trampling on your rights does not remove them, as our current government proves every day.
Well, there is a legal process for striking a Constitutional right like free speech.
...
No there is NOT! Your rights are inalienable. Meaning ALWAYS WITH YOU. Just because it is or isn't in the Constitution or any other document doesn't mean that you don't have the right. Rights are not granted by the government, priviledges are. There is a very big difference.
inalienable \In*al"ien*a*ble\, a. [Pref. in- not + alienable: cf. F. inali['e]nable.]
Incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred to another; not alienable; as, in inalienable birthright.
Can't get any clearer than that
they have a right to do whatever they want with the information they gather ... Like your cresit card number? How about your doctor? Does *he* have a right to do anything he wants with the information he gathers?
Sure sounds like *you'd* be fun to hang out with! "short tempered woman, ready to take out frustrations on any perceived slight. Grain of salt required. Must be willing to deal with ignorants with ignorance and name calling."
I never said that it was the sole domain of libertarians. It is a core value of libertarians, and using the term disparagingly shows that you don't think much of the belief ... but anyway!
... and that's what's sad about this country today. Don't you care?
I never said that we should *ignore* the supreme court, i just said that they cannot legislate away individual inalienable rights, *by definition*. Im sure they picked that word carefully. No, congress cannot be trusted to pass laws that are constitutional, but neither can the sumpreme court be trusted to ubhold constitutional laws, nor strike down unconstitutional ones. Ethernal vigilance is the price of freedom.
The intent of the framers is not a wildly subjective thing; I believe you have already referenced the federalist papers, which while only written by three men, describe their feelings in great detail. And, even if they meant the 10th to be loosly interpreted, deToqueville has explained why that is, and I dont want to get too far offtopic (too late!)
One can never surrender their rights. They can be taken from someone, but not freely. And your pragmatic view belies your feeling that it's not worth fighting for
My last paragraph was a (rambling, i admit) description of the bogus argument that it is within the govt's right to do this. Would you complain if they had video cameras in your bedroom, always taping, in order to facilitate the execution of a warrant? Perhaps on charges of violation of a blue law? "We promise not to look at them, unless we have a valid warrant!" This is exactly the same thing, except because it's crypto, no many people understand it. "It doesn't affect me!"
Read the rest of the thread, jackass.
You say "libertarian" like it's a bad thing. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" obviously aren't important to you. Well, they are to me. If you'd like to give them up, that's fine. Just don't ask me to.
r m=Inalienable
I *strongly* disagree that the tenth is largely symbolic. It goes to the core of why we have a federal government in the first place. I am less concerned with later judicial decisions regarding it; rather, what is important to understand is the intent of the framers when they wrote the amendment. Any future weakening of the constitution is invaild from the start, regardless of the Sumpreme Court decisions. You cannot "surrender" your rights. Rights are non-transferable. Definition at http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?db=*&te
Back on point: Are we bound by law to install video cameras in our bedrooms? Leave tape recorders in our pockets, so the feds can capture any statement we say? Check in to get travel papers whenever we go anywhere? Not yet, but this is a step doen that road. Am I required to converse in a manner in which I can be eavesdropped? Or do you feel that should be ilegal, and that supreme court rulings have taken away my first amendment rights as well?
This is a clear violation of our fourth amendment right to a warrant that "particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized", as well as the ninth and tenth amendments, which restricts the feds to only the enumerated powers in the constitution. It is telling, however, that on the feds reference site (http://thomas.loc.gov) that the bill of rights, the constitution, and the declaration of independence are listed under "historical documents". They obviously don't have any meaning to today's government.
Actually, they need at least 4 sattelites to be able to determine your altitude. a nitpick, i know ...
Umm, since people have been sending email by radio waves for at least 15 years, I think that there is a bit of prior art they would have to overcome. And their transmitter isn't even *pointed* at anything. Seems like a patent for that would be about as useful as a patent for a write-only hard drive.
Heh heh. $78M US is a pittance for that guy. Probably less than 10% of his net worth. He just wanted to buy a new house or something.
A friend has a fisher-price child monitor w/an IR camera so he can see his daughter in her dark bedroom ... it cost him ~$200 U.S. It works real well, and it also works in the daytime ... Although i also know that the US-CDN exchange rate is pretty high ... ;-)
Well then, you won't mind them implanting a tracking device in your head, then either? How about video cameras in your house? As long as you're not breaking any laws, what's the problem? Nice to know there are still people like you who only care about themselves. Good show!
The british terrorists will suppress the Irish as long as the Irish let them. As soon as the Irish finish the job, they will be free. Not before. Power will not be given away, it must be taken back
The sooner you get used to it, the better. Actually, you just *wish* you had a declaration of independance. And we're pissing ours away ...
Heh heh. That's what the founding fathers thought, too. That's why your vote doesn't really count in the presidential election. Ever heard of a little thing called the "Electoral College"? Same thing goes for our representative democracy. You can't be trusted with your vote.
My point was once it was sold, it is useless to call the company to have them "remove" the data - it's already multiplied out to whereabouts unknown. And good luck trying to do it in the courts; if yours are 1/2 as slow as ours, you'll be long dead before you get any relief that way! :-)
Problem is, there are no measures you can take to protect your privacy from the government. If you want a drivers license, marraige license, or to stay of of jail for income tax evasion, you must tell them alot about you. No way around it. Then they can do whatever they want with it, including sell it to private business, and your screwed.
he he ... ho ho ... "anytime I like, I can tell these people to delete my data from their database"? You have got to be kidding me! You cannot be that naive ... that information is being sold everyday to data warehouses, who in turn sell the data to many interested parties. Even if they agreed to delete your data (which they will *not*, it's too valuable) there's no way they could! It's way out of their hands now, and yours. Is saving $0.10 on Charmin really worth it?
Now, if you're happy doing this, that's fine with me, because it's *your* data. Don't force me to join in, however.
Heh heh heh ... of course, what *you* are suggesting is totally mature, and something that people with something better to do would.
If you want to help others, please speak about what you understand; don't just fly off the handle and shout "AIX sucks" without knowing what you're talking about. It's these uninformed rants and prejudices that are making the Open Source movement look like a bunch of crybabies.
I love that excuse. What, did they run out of paper and ink? Warehouse space? Or space in the writers/editors mind?
he he. It warms my heart to know that the ASCAP is just trying to protect musicians all over the world from meanies, not just to make money for itself!
The property in question is *not* owned by the library, it's owned by *me*. And by *you*. If you want to give away your right to decide how you want your money used, that's fine with me. I'll *not* give up mine.