I love the free market because I love watching markets change to meet the needs of the consumers (demand) as well as the manufacturers (supply). I love seeing both sides of a barter or exchange profit from that exchange, rather than one side gaining and one side losing. The free market is not zero sum: it is mutual gain. This is capitalism. The State-licensed mercantilistic market is not zero sum -- one party loses, one party gains. This is socialism or Western State mercantilism.
Socialism: 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (thanks Merriam Webster)
If the cities own the broadband infrastructure, and sell Internet services THAT is socialism. The government restricting itself from entering private markets is the opposite of socialism. Private enterprise simply can't compete with government. Government doesn't opperate by free market principles. Government doesn't care about supply or demand, it doesn't maximize efficiencies. It doesn't act rationally.
Realistic capitalists realize that some regulation is required in practical free markets.
That would be emigration. Unlike some places in the world, Americans are free to leave anytime they choose. That they don't tells me that they believe there is no place better to go.
The best can still suck, and I think we've long since lost that title (assuming anyone outside the country ever thought we had it).
You statement is contradicted by the fact that we have completely open emmigration, and yet our population continues to grow instead of shrink. Canada is a good example, since they are the closest "enlightened" country with a culture similar to ours. Yet they've lost population to the US every year since the end of the Vietnam War. It should be relatively simple for those of you who think that the US is no longer the best country in the world to JUST LEAVE. But, for some reason we can't get rid of you. Even your rich and famous flag bearers who planned to flee the country in terror if Bush was elected are still here. We all know they have the resources to move and take up residence anywhere in the world, but they just won't go. There must be a reason.
You, apparently, are satisfied to live in a country where you can't even know what laws you're held accountable to obey.
I've never lived in such a country, so I can't say for sure, but I don't think I would like it. The case that you have relied on to prove that this is such a country disproves your assertion. The court specifically held that in fact he did know what law he was held acountable for (without penalty BTW). You may disagree with their read of the facts, but you can't miss that they agree with you on the law; people should not be held liable for breaking laws when they could not have had notice of them. You claimed that this case stands for the coutrary position that people can be held accountable for breaking laws they couldn't have notice of.
You probably like secret prisons, secret trials, warrantless wiretaps and suspension of due process, too.
All of those things are good and necessary under certain conditions.
You appear to have quoted a sentence from the court's recitation of the facts. Here's a paragraph from the court's discussion of the issues:
Moreover, Gilmore had actual notice of the identification policy. He alleged that several airline personnel asked him for identification and informed him of the identification policy. They told him that in order to board the aircraft, he must either present identification or be subject to a selectee search. He also saw a sign in front of United Airlines ticketing counter that read PASSENGERS MUST PRESENT IDENTIFICATION UPON INITIAL CHECK-IN. Although Gilmore was not given the text of the identification policy due to the Security Directives classification as SSI, he was nonetheless accorded adequate notice given that he was informed of the policy and how to comply. See Forbes v. Napolitano, 236 F.3d 1009, 1011 (9th Cir. 2000) ([I]ndividuals must be given a reasonable opportunity to discern whether their conduct is proscribed so they can choose whether or not to comply with the law.).
The court agrees with the plaintiff's position that one must have notice of laws that one is expected to comply with, but holds that the plaintiff had adequate notice. In other words, this decision supports the proposition that THERE ARE NO SECRET LAWS. At least not any that you are expected to obey.
This opinion also has a good discussion of why flying is not a constitutionally protected right.
I didn't miss the point. I responded to an overly broad and naive statement. Yes, law abiding people should not normally fear their government, but that doesn't mean that they won't sometimes be harrased, arrested, or generally inconvenienced by government action. If that were the case, we wouldn't need courts.
Did you click the link in the post you replied to? That's a case where the Supreme Court holds that interstate transportation is unequivically related to commerce.
But let's take your example:
"It might also cover the federal government's wish to "regulate" a business, such as an airline, which operates across state lines -- but it is no longer a granted power when that wish begins regulating the behavior of private individuals, not in commerce, but in actions only tangentially related to commerce."
Since you conceed that Congress has the power to regulate what an airline can carry across state lines for pay, what if we just applied that to passengers as well. What if the regulations in question applied to the airlines and who they are allowed to transport, and how they must screen those passengers before transporting them? What if? What if you actually read the regulations in question. You just might be surprised...
I am somewhat familiar with it, but perhaps your copy is missing a few pages. Article I Section 8 of my copy of the United States Constitution contains what is commonly refered to as the commerce clause, and give Congress the power, "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes". Now, there's some debate about the boundaries of the scope of the commerce clause, but I think you'd have to be pretty far out there to claim that commercial air travel isn't covered. If you are serious about this, you might want to check out Gibbons v. Ogden.
Bullshit. You're going to have to cite a more authoritative source than some hippy-ACLU-reject's website. Why can't I find the link to this 9th Circuit opinion that says they have read the secret laws and they are good? In 2006, it should come as a surprise to no one that the FAA and the TSA can create regulations about what may and may not happen before you board a commercial aircraft. These are not secret laws, and to the extent that they exist, you can read them. That isn't to say that some low-wage TSA employee who has no idea what section of the USC or CFR's he is enforcing won't tell you that the law is secret instead of admitting that he is just repeating what he has been told, but that's no excuse for otherwise bright people to believe him.
As to why you can be denied boarding of a commercial aircraft if you refuse to ID yourself and be searched, it isn't because there is a secret law. I would direct your attention to 49 CFR, and the various Supreme Court decisions upholding just about every aspect of airport security.
None of this is germane to the discussion, however, since the laws that the GP was railing against are as a matter of provable fact available for his perusal.
Too bad you're an AC. Otherwise I might attempt to engage you. If you care, you might want to consider why neither reasonable suspicion nor probable cause is required to deny you boarding when you refuse to be searched.
Remember, people should not be afraid of their governments.
How completely trite and naive. People who intend to break the law should absolutely be afraid of their government. Even you neolibertarians believe that the gov't should have police, and enforce some laws. What the hell is the point of punishing law breakers if not to deter other potential law breakers? And what is deterence if not the fear of being the object of government power?
You need to loosen your tin-foil hat, and stop getting your news from/. and commondreams. One of the great things about the United States is the abundance of primary sources when it comes to our government. If you so desired, you could actually read the laws that you obviously have no understanding of.
An elevator is an enclosed space with little or no air exchange. An aircraft is an enclosed space with a very high air exchange rate. Pepper spray in a commercial aircraft would dissipate very quickly. On the order of 1-2 minutes. For some reason people tend to think of the air in planes as stagnant, but that's very far from true.
And there's no good reason for us to put up with it now.
So don't. Flying is not a necessity, nor a Constitutionally protected right. If it were, the gov't would be giving out free tickets to the indigent.
The airlines (read, private industry) lobbied for the creation of the TSA and the gov't supervision of security. The airlines could no longer handle the costs of adequate security, nor the liability for the spectacular failures. If you don't want to put up with the hassles, stop flying. Let the market decide.
This isn't disclosure of a vulnerability. This vulnerability has already been disclosed and beaten to death (on the floor of the US Congress even). It was discussed by Schneier and others as soon as the ID checks at the gate stopped. What this guy did was much more like publishing an exploit script. It's even worse than that, since he was actually generating the fake documents for people.
If that's going to be your argument, then we are already under martial law, since every police officer in America carries a gun. But that's not what martial law means. Even if it had been federal troops hearding protesters into designated protest zones, it still wouldn't be martial law. No more than four LA cops beating Rodney King is the imposition of martial law. Martial law is not the extralegal imposition of military force against civilians. It's also a lot more than using military troops to enforce the law. It is in fact the legal imposition of military law on civilians, including courts martial for civilians. Martial law cannot even be declared in the US as long as the civilian courts are operating.
Too bad your initial reaction wasn't, "I should go read the bill[0]", or "I should figure out what marshal law is." There's nothing in the section in question that's anything like advocating marshal law, or giving the president any additional power to declare it. Marshal law is more than just putting troops in the street. Marshal law is the suspension of civil authority, and the imposition of military authority on civillians. There's absolutly nothing in there that says anything about suspending civil authority. It's all about the fed.gov's power to send troops to assist in local emergencies, and the legality of using federal dollars to do so.
[0]Even better would be if you read the new law and the old law, so that you could see what has actually changed.
What handle do you use? Gillete mailed me a Sensor when I turned 18, and I have no trouble finding replacement heads for it. I've been using the same handle for over a decade. They sent me a Mach III after they came out, but I couldn't figure out a use for it other than slicing up my face.
The music companies say that you haven't purchased a physical object
Are you talking about CDs or downloaded music?
If the former, then you are simply wrong. You've purchased the physical CD, and you can legally do whatever you want with it, including sell it (see, first sale doctrine). However, you do not have the right to separate the content from the media and do with it as you wish. This is of course the same right you have with a book. You can loan or sell your copy of Harry Potter to your brother, but you can't legally scan it into your computer and distribute it on the Intarweb.
If you mean the later, then of course the music companies are correct.
You're still wrong. If simply failing to control the content magically granted Yahoo! a "common carrier" defense, then there would be no need for a federal statute. Whether you are "acting" as a common carrier or not, if your aren't a common carrier, you don't get common carrier protections. That's why ISP's who have fought against being considered common carriers, also fought for the protections afforded by the DMCA.
Unless I'm wrong, in which case I expect that you will post some authority which stands for the proposition that an ISP or service provider can escape liability simply by claiming that they are a common carrier as a matter of practical fact.
Since you'll never believe me, why not go to the source?
Subscriber Acquisition Costs. Subscriber acquisition costs include hardware subsidies paid to radio manufacturers, distributors and automakers, including subsidies paid to automakers who include a SIRIUS radio and a prepaid subscription to our service in the sale or lease price of a new vehicle; subsidies paid to chip set manufacturers; and commissions paid to retailers and automakers as incentives to purchase, install and activate SIRIUS radios. The majority of subscriber acquisition costs are incurred and expensed in advance of acquiring a subscriber. Subscriber acquisition costs do not include advertising, loyalty payments to distributors and dealers of SIRIUS radios and revenue share payments to automakers and retailers of SIRIUS radios which are included in sales and marketing expense. Subscriber acquisition costs also do not include amounts capitalized in connection with our agreement with Hertz, as we retain ownership of certain SIRIUS radios used by Hertz.
Slashdot Mirror
I love the free market because I love watching markets change to meet the needs of the consumers (demand) as well as the manufacturers (supply). I love seeing both sides of a barter or exchange profit from that exchange, rather than one side gaining and one side losing. The free market is not zero sum: it is mutual gain. This is capitalism. The State-licensed mercantilistic market is not zero sum -- one party loses, one party gains. This is socialism or Western State mercantilism.
Socialism: 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (thanks Merriam Webster)
If the cities own the broadband infrastructure, and sell Internet services THAT is socialism. The government restricting itself from entering private markets is the opposite of socialism. Private enterprise simply can't compete with government. Government doesn't opperate by free market principles. Government doesn't care about supply or demand, it doesn't maximize efficiencies. It doesn't act rationally.
Realistic capitalists realize that some regulation is required in practical free markets.
That would be emigration. Unlike some places in the world, Americans are free to leave anytime they choose. That they don't tells me that they believe there is no place better to go.
The best can still suck, and I think we've long since lost that title (assuming anyone outside the country ever thought we had it).
You statement is contradicted by the fact that we have completely open emmigration, and yet our population continues to grow instead of shrink. Canada is a good example, since they are the closest "enlightened" country with a culture similar to ours. Yet they've lost population to the US every year since the end of the Vietnam War. It should be relatively simple for those of you who think that the US is no longer the best country in the world to JUST LEAVE. But, for some reason we can't get rid of you. Even your rich and famous flag bearers who planned to flee the country in terror if Bush was elected are still here. We all know they have the resources to move and take up residence anywhere in the world, but they just won't go. There must be a reason.
You, apparently, are satisfied to live in a country where you can't even know what laws you're held accountable to obey.
I've never lived in such a country, so I can't say for sure, but I don't think I would like it. The case that you have relied on to prove that this is such a country disproves your assertion. The court specifically held that in fact he did know what law he was held acountable for (without penalty BTW). You may disagree with their read of the facts, but you can't miss that they agree with you on the law; people should not be held liable for breaking laws when they could not have had notice of them. You claimed that this case stands for the coutrary position that people can be held accountable for breaking laws they couldn't have notice of.
You probably like secret prisons, secret trials, warrantless wiretaps and suspension of due process, too.
All of those things are good and necessary under certain conditions.
Read and replied to. Summary: You're still wrong.
The court agrees with the plaintiff's position that one must have notice of laws that one is expected to comply with, but holds that the plaintiff had adequate notice. In other words, this decision supports the proposition that THERE ARE NO SECRET LAWS. At least not any that you are expected to obey.
This opinion also has a good discussion of why flying is not a constitutionally protected right.
I didn't miss the point. I responded to an overly broad and naive statement. Yes, law abiding people should not normally fear their government, but that doesn't mean that they won't sometimes be harrased, arrested, or generally inconvenienced by government action. If that were the case, we wouldn't need courts.
Did you click the link in the post you replied to? That's a case where the Supreme Court holds that interstate transportation is unequivically related to commerce.
But let's take your example:
"It might also cover the federal government's wish to "regulate" a business, such as an airline, which operates across state lines -- but it is no longer a granted power when that wish begins regulating the behavior of private individuals, not in commerce, but in actions only tangentially related to commerce."
Since you conceed that Congress has the power to regulate what an airline can carry across state lines for pay, what if we just applied that to passengers as well. What if the regulations in question applied to the airlines and who they are allowed to transport, and how they must screen those passengers before transporting them? What if? What if you actually read the regulations in question. You just might be surprised...
This is just as contrived as the claim that your travel between states constitutes "interstate commerce."
This topic was actually controversial in 1800.
Or the "10D/0t" problem.
Indeed.
I am somewhat familiar with it, but perhaps your copy is missing a few pages. Article I Section 8 of my copy of the United States Constitution contains what is commonly refered to as the commerce clause, and give Congress the power, "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes". Now, there's some debate about the boundaries of the scope of the commerce clause, but I think you'd have to be pretty far out there to claim that commercial air travel isn't covered. If you are serious about this, you might want to check out Gibbons v. Ogden .
Bullshit. You're going to have to cite a more authoritative source than some hippy-ACLU-reject's website. Why can't I find the link to this 9th Circuit opinion that says they have read the secret laws and they are good? In 2006, it should come as a surprise to no one that the FAA and the TSA can create regulations about what may and may not happen before you board a commercial aircraft. These are not secret laws, and to the extent that they exist, you can read them. That isn't to say that some low-wage TSA employee who has no idea what section of the USC or CFR's he is enforcing won't tell you that the law is secret instead of admitting that he is just repeating what he has been told, but that's no excuse for otherwise bright people to believe him.
As to why you can be denied boarding of a commercial aircraft if you refuse to ID yourself and be searched, it isn't because there is a secret law. I would direct your attention to 49 CFR, and the various Supreme Court decisions upholding just about every aspect of airport security.
None of this is germane to the discussion, however, since the laws that the GP was railing against are as a matter of provable fact available for his perusal.
Too bad you're an AC. Otherwise I might attempt to engage you. If you care, you might want to consider why neither reasonable suspicion nor probable cause is required to deny you boarding when you refuse to be searched.
Remember, people should not be afraid of their governments.
How completely trite and naive. People who intend to break the law should absolutely be afraid of their government. Even you neolibertarians believe that the gov't should have police, and enforce some laws. What the hell is the point of punishing law breakers if not to deter other potential law breakers? And what is deterence if not the fear of being the object of government power?
You need to loosen your tin-foil hat, and stop getting your news from /. and commondreams. One of the great things about the United States is the abundance of primary sources when it comes to our government. If you so desired, you could actually read the laws that you obviously have no understanding of.
An elevator is an enclosed space with little or no air exchange. An aircraft is an enclosed space with a very high air exchange rate. Pepper spray in a commercial aircraft would dissipate very quickly. On the order of 1-2 minutes. For some reason people tend to think of the air in planes as stagnant, but that's very far from true.
And there's no good reason for us to put up with it now.
So don't. Flying is not a necessity, nor a Constitutionally protected right. If it were, the gov't would be giving out free tickets to the indigent.
The airlines (read, private industry) lobbied for the creation of the TSA and the gov't supervision of security. The airlines could no longer handle the costs of adequate security, nor the liability for the spectacular failures. If you don't want to put up with the hassles, stop flying. Let the market decide.
This isn't disclosure of a vulnerability. This vulnerability has already been disclosed and beaten to death (on the floor of the US Congress even). It was discussed by Schneier and others as soon as the ID checks at the gate stopped. What this guy did was much more like publishing an exploit script. It's even worse than that, since he was actually generating the fake documents for people.
If that's going to be your argument, then we are already under martial law, since every police officer in America carries a gun. But that's not what martial law means. Even if it had been federal troops hearding protesters into designated protest zones, it still wouldn't be martial law. No more than four LA cops beating Rodney King is the imposition of martial law. Martial law is not the extralegal imposition of military force against civilians. It's also a lot more than using military troops to enforce the law. It is in fact the legal imposition of military law on civilians, including courts martial for civilians. Martial law cannot even be declared in the US as long as the civilian courts are operating.
Too bad your initial reaction wasn't, "I should go read the bill[0]", or "I should figure out what marshal law is." There's nothing in the section in question that's anything like advocating marshal law, or giving the president any additional power to declare it. Marshal law is more than just putting troops in the street. Marshal law is the suspension of civil authority, and the imposition of military authority on civillians. There's absolutly nothing in there that says anything about suspending civil authority. It's all about the fed.gov's power to send troops to assist in local emergencies, and the legality of using federal dollars to do so.
[0]Even better would be if you read the new law and the old law, so that you could see what has actually changed.
What handle do you use? Gillete mailed me a Sensor when I turned 18, and I have no trouble finding replacement heads for it. I've been using the same handle for over a decade. They sent me a Mach III after they came out, but I couldn't figure out a use for it other than slicing up my face.
The music companies say that you haven't purchased a physical object
Are you talking about CDs or downloaded music?
If the former, then you are simply wrong. You've purchased the physical CD, and you can legally do whatever you want with it, including sell it (see, first sale doctrine). However, you do not have the right to separate the content from the media and do with it as you wish. This is of course the same right you have with a book. You can loan or sell your copy of Harry Potter to your brother, but you can't legally scan it into your computer and distribute it on the Intarweb.
If you mean the later, then of course the music companies are correct.
The large sucking sound you hear is the irony of your post flying right over your head.
You're still wrong. If simply failing to control the content magically granted Yahoo! a "common carrier" defense, then there would be no need for a federal statute. Whether you are "acting" as a common carrier or not, if your aren't a common carrier, you don't get common carrier protections. That's why ISP's who have fought against being considered common carriers, also fought for the protections afforded by the DMCA.
Unless I'm wrong, in which case I expect that you will post some authority which stands for the proposition that an ISP or service provider can escape liability simply by claiming that they are a common carrier as a matter of practical fact.
http://www.shareholder.com/Common/Edgar/908937/95