The word "equality" is meaningless without the clarification: equality of what? Hair color? Penis size?
In the context of politics, the following two equalities are usually meant by the arguing sides — even when neither side makes their own meaning explicit:
Equality of Opportunity versus Equality of Results.
The "all men created equal" concept is about equality of opportunity: you start with (roughly) the same things as everybody else and whatever you achieve (or not achieve as the case might be) is due to your own industry, frugality, and, perhaps, genes. We might be created equal (subject to gene variations), but what we do after the creation is up to us.
The equality of results is the opposite: whatever you do, you will have (roughly) the same things at the end: if you are more successful than average, the State will tax you to ensure the results of the less successful aren't too different from yours — a concept lovingly referred to as "spreading the wealth around".
A large number of politicians made careers of conflating the two equalities — by harping at the absence of latter and implying, the former does not exist. Such demagoguery patently dishonest not only in theory, but also in practice...
originally that was the author/inventor, but that ship has long sailed - now it's corporate profits almost exclusively
The "inventor vs. corporation" distinction you are trying to make is without difference. For an inventor to use his invention — whether he himself forms a company to profit from it or sells the invention to an existing company — either way the intellectual property must be controlled by him initially. In this regard nothing has changed since "last century".
We know, what was happening before "intellectual property" was invented — unless they had other sources of income, poets and writers (creators of easily copiable wares) were starving. Inventors, likewise, either went unrewarded for their inventions or were forced to monetize it themselves — and rare is a human, who is both a good inventor and a good businessman. As usual, leftists proclamations are dragging humanity into the past in the guise of "progress"...
artificial scarcity
There is no such thing.
This is the term Marxists use to justify spreading other people's wealth around, that's all. Oh, sure, music and movies can be copied indefinitely and designs and algorithms can be used by anyone once created. But all of those creators need very material things to sustain themselves — and neither food, nor shelter, nor (gasp!) healthcare can be copied via torrent.
Some companies are willing to release software to the wild, others do not. Basing one's employment decisions on that is, indeed quixotic.
That's pretty cool. I guess, the entire ISO-8859-15 is Ok? But not Cyrillics:-( Or else, you would've seen some Ukrainian-Russian conflict right here...
I was never asked the question of how much cash I'm carrying. Nor have I ever — in 20+ years of being an American — been made aware of having to declare such sums.
withdrawing more than $10k in cash from a bank
What if it is simply my savings — stored in a jar?
if that money ends up as part of a money laundering scheme, the feds can find you
That's a good argument to have one's DNA registered — at birth. In case it ever ends up inside a rape victim or on a murder scene, you know... Somehow, that has not persuaded Americans to mandate DNA-registration. Not yet, anyway. But, as I said, personal assets are not protected anywhere near as well by our laws, as the persons themselves...
It is even less hard — for the government — to construct the opposite. In fact, they already did — the no-fly lists exist...
Take a look at the Second Amendment — the right to "keep and bear arms" does not need to be constructed or otherwise derived — it is explicitly listed. And what? Even in the most liberal places — like Texas — you must have a license for it. Which means, it is not a right, but merely a privilege...
insist that private contractors abide by the same rules that government agencies do
This is not, in itself outrageous or even stupid. Should an orbit-bound rocket lose control, for example, the results may well be far more disastrous than 9/11...
even when the contractors are cheaper and safer than than the government agencies last attempt.
Perhaps, they borrowed the illogic from the Labor Unions? You know, the guys, who insist, foreign manufacturing be following the same procedures and workers be paid the same as in here?
If you're traveling with more than $10k, you just have to fill out one form declaring it.
I believe, that requirement — whatever its Constitutionality — applies only to people arriving into the US, not leaving. Indeed, you aren't declaring anything upon leaving — neither the Customs nor Border Patrol have anything to do with passengers departing.
Also, it was introduced, when $10k meant a lot more money, than it does today. I don't know, when, exactly, but I do remember seeing it on the Custom form in the early 90ies. The $10k even then was $17.5k in today's dollars. But, I think, the requirement is much older...
most of it laundered drug money... What do bitcoins smell like?
I'm far more concerned, whether the smell of my honestly-earned money is any different from that of the laundered drug proceeds. I suspect, the smell is exactly the same and, should I ever choose to cross the border with substantial cash, these devices will point me out. A major loophole in American (and English) legal system, allows seizure of "suspect" assets even if the person himself can not be arrested.
Now, why would an honest citizen need to carry his cash with him?.. Oh, well...
My objection was not to merits or lack thereof of a particular OS, but to the practice of placing the burden of research on the audience (and opponents).
Whatever it is you are stating, should be backed by evidence. It is best to include the links with the statement being supported, but it can be tedious. So, links should be provided upon request — without any lip like "just google it yourself"...
I would say it would be against the Fourth Amendment as I would say it is an unreasonable search
Oh, but "reasonable" is a term with such a wide interpretation, you drive a train through it — sideways...
Just ask a European what they think privacy is and you will see that it is much more that just the stuff you do at home when you are alone. It inclused everything you do and what defines you as a person. That is the startingpoint.
Well, you can not board a train anonymously in Europe either — so, in that regard, we are "like Europe" already. Or do you believe, European police don't have access to the rail passengers?.. Of course, they do — and it does not even cause an outrage, unlike here...
The mere freedom of association includes by pretext the right to travel to associate.
A very explicitly spelled-out right to "keep and bear arms" is readily infringed upon all over the nation. Even the most liberal locales — like Texas — require you to obtain a license. And it can be suspended even there upon a mere accusation of a crime.
In less liberal locales — like New York — the Executive can withdraw the license at any moment and for any reason — or without reason at all. Says so on the document itself... In other words, over the generations even that right turned into a privilege.
And that, once again, is a right, that is quite explicitly enumerated in the Constitution — for better or worse. What are we to expect for a right, that exists (or not) only by implication and must be derived from another or, worse, from the well-meaning but nebulous 9th Amendment?
The law doesn't state you have freedom to use any means of transport available. You can be banned from airlines, trains, buses, and your rights technically aren't infringed because you can still walk
If the First Amendment were interpreted this way, you could be banned from using newspapers or radio for your speech — and it would not have been an infringement, because you can still talk to your friends...
drive your car
Nope, that still requires a "driver's license" — a government's permission to drive your own car on any road, to which the public has legal access. And the Executive government can withdraw that permission without bothering with the Judiciary.
Nope, you only need be under suspicion of a crime. All it takes.
It takes a judge's decision — as the terms of your release before trial. Judiciary can suspend your rights. Executive should not be able to — but, in the case of travel, they do just that with the "no-fly" lists. Which was my point.
Like people on GPS bracelets to ensure they do not leave the state.
The bracelets are an alternative to being in jail — having your freedoms suspended by the Judiciary, not Executive. Executive can arrest you — limiting your freedoms temporarily — but they can not deprive a citizen of his rights for very long without a successful a successful trial.
Try again when you have been around the world, checked out the laws and rights enshrined within those laws, been arrested under those laws
I've been around the world quite a bit, but I have never been arrested. Nor do I accept that as a requirement to holding (and putting forth) an opinion.
I can still enter the UK despite my last trip causing a ton of problems with the Bobbies.
We already have freedom of movement [wikipedia.org], which is enshrined in the Constitution, as interpreted by case law.
In that case, the "no-fly" lists are, indeed, unconstitutional — and the ACLU are asleep at the wheel. Perhaps, having aligned themselves over the past decades with the Far Left of the American politics, they don't want to further hamper a Far Left President... Or, maybe, they are just disorganized and lacking decent members and funds — as eventually befalls all Far Left organizations, who don't manage to secure government funding while in their heyday.
What we don't have is freedom of anonymous movement.
Well, in that case we don't have a right to anonymous speech either. But numerous people on this and other forums would disagree — sometimes violently...
In my humble opinion, any right — speech, travel, carrying weapons — must be exercisable anonymously, or else it is not really a right at all, but a mere privilege.
Unfortunately, I — a first generation immigrant — have been rather disappointed by Americans generally agreeing, the government should be limiting certain rights with "common sense", even if "sometimes" it could go "over the top".
This sounds like a case of the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing.
Why? Seems like exactly the opposite — DEA does know, Amtrak has the information, and DEA arranged for the information to be available to them at ease...
While neither collection method sounds constitutional to me I am not surprised.
I'm not surprised either, but I don't see, how this is unconstitutional. The Constitution has nothing on the right to travel and, if you ask a government official, you'll quickly realize, they consider traveling to be a privilege instead.
You can not buy an Amtrak ticket anonymously. And you can not give your ticket to anyone else. With air-tickets this fraud was put upon us (years before 9/11) with the argument, that the airline and the law-enforcement need to screen the passenger names against list of criminals — so they need to know all names in advance.
But most Amtrak tickets are purchased within hours before departure, AFAIK, so this argument would not hold.
The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.
Thomas Jefferson
We need the traveling to be explicitly declared a right, that only the Judiciary can suspend after a trial — rather than a mere privilege, that the Executive can withdraw on their whim (such as by adding you to a "no-fly" list) or, indeed, demanding to "see your papers" (and recording them for future use).
I can't see it happening any time soon, though. Bushitler-created TSA has only expanded under the Nobel Peace Prize Administration — and now insists on covering not just air-travel, but all mass transit. Driving a personal car has required a government permission for near a century, and being driven by someone else is increasingly difficult too.
If many employees are not doing the work however, the problem is likely not the employees but a more general systemic issue relating to management or work structure
Oh, I didn't mean, it is only the low-level employees themselves, who must all be fired (though some of the ought to be). What I said applies equally to managers — whom their managers are reluctant to fire because it is both difficult to do and hurts the person's own record.
Really? I'm sorry, but when was the last time any IRS official pulled a gun on someone and told them to hand over their money.
If you don't pay, IRS will put a lien on your house. If you still don't pay, the house will be sold — and police (with guns) will arrive to kick you out from it.
Don't be stupid disputing the obvious — all governments world-wide collect revenues at gun-point. It is normal and the only way possible. It just means, the monies thus collected should only be used in situations, where weapons would take place: enforcing laws and fighting foreign enemies.
You mean like Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, AIG [....]
Corporations don't have the means of coercing people to buy their services, don't even bring them up here.
After all, the benevolence of the private sector is so well known we sing their praises every day because they never, EVER take advantage of people or stick it to us in their quest for profits
Again, corporations are not (normally) in a position to coerce anybody to buy their services — only the government is in such a position and its role in our lives must be minimized, not perpetually expanded.
Corporations are not any nicer, than they have to be — in order to compete. But monopolies — like Comcast — don't have anyone to compete with. And the government is the biggest and harshest monopoly of all. One can cancel their Comcast bill — even if it can be infuriatingly ridiculous. Now try opting out of Social Security...
Nah, I foresee a large number of vacant positions in the very near future - Particularly as we get closer to November 4th.
Wishful thinking.
Federal employees are practically unfirable. For one, they are — bizarrely — unionized (to protect them from their employer — us), but that's only part of the reason, for corporations with unionized workforce still do fire bad workers, even if it is harder for them to do so than it ought to be.
The real problem is that firing an underling reflects poorly on his manager(s). This is also the truth everywhere, of course, but in normal enterprises there is this dirty and otherwise reprehensible "profit" to think about, so a bad employee can still be fired even if the manager's record gets hurt in the process. But the glorious government enterprises do not defile their mission with concerns for profit — their revenue is collected for them at gun point by the IRS.
Hence, practically nobody ever gets fired from government — "counseling" and "discipline" is the worst, that usually happens to our civil servants. Is it not time, we put our health care into their capable hands? Oh, wait...
It will be interesting to see if the F35 arrives at all.
And it, probably, should not. Modern technology already does — or soon will — allow sending a "zerg rush" of remotely-operated drones to overwhelm enemy's defenses. Remotely operated by the new generations raised on video-games — and often too fat for personal fighting anyway.
Oh, and it is not just aircraft — the same logic would apply to tanks and ships. Once you no longer need to care about the soft pink body(ies) inside the military vehicle, you can stuff if with much more weaponry, make it do things which would've killed the human personnel before (like 20-g turns), and comfortably send it on "suicide" missions.
Slashdot Mirror
The word "equality" is meaningless without the clarification: equality of what? Hair color? Penis size?
In the context of politics, the following two equalities are usually meant by the arguing sides — even when neither side makes their own meaning explicit:
Equality of Opportunity versus Equality of Results .
The "all men created equal" concept is about equality of opportunity: you start with (roughly) the same things as everybody else and whatever you achieve (or not achieve as the case might be) is due to your own industry, frugality, and, perhaps, genes. We might be created equal (subject to gene variations), but what we do after the creation is up to us.
The equality of results is the opposite: whatever you do, you will have (roughly) the same things at the end: if you are more successful than average, the State will tax you to ensure the results of the less successful aren't too different from yours — a concept lovingly referred to as "spreading the wealth around".
A large number of politicians made careers of conflating the two equalities — by harping at the absence of latter and implying, the former does not exist. Such demagoguery patently dishonest not only in theory, but also in practice...
The "inventor vs. corporation" distinction you are trying to make is without difference . For an inventor to use his invention — whether he himself forms a company to profit from it or sells the invention to an existing company — either way the intellectual property must be controlled by him initially. In this regard nothing has changed since "last century".
We know, what was happening before "intellectual property" was invented — unless they had other sources of income, poets and writers (creators of easily copiable wares) were starving. Inventors, likewise, either went unrewarded for their inventions or were forced to monetize it themselves — and rare is a human, who is both a good inventor and a good businessman. As usual, leftists proclamations are dragging humanity into the past in the guise of "progress"...
There is no such thing.
This is the term Marxists use to justify spreading other people's wealth around, that's all. Oh, sure, music and movies can be copied indefinitely and designs and algorithms can be used by anyone once created. But all of those creators need very material things to sustain themselves — and neither food, nor shelter, nor (gasp!) healthcare can be copied via torrent.
Some companies are willing to release software to the wild, others do not. Basing one's employment decisions on that is, indeed quixotic.
Citation needed.
And there is nothing wrong with mandatory ID-carrying either, is there? "Papers please" much?
That's pretty cool. I guess, the entire ISO-8859-15 is Ok? But not Cyrillics :-( Or else, you would've seen some Ukrainian-Russian conflict right here...
I routinely substitute Cyrillic letters for Latin on Disqus and other forums to get around their filters (which block for more than mere "profanity").
Slashdot does not allow non-ASCII characters — although it does not attempt to screen out profanity either.
I was never asked the question of how much cash I'm carrying. Nor have I ever — in 20+ years of being an American — been made aware of having to declare such sums.
What if it is simply my savings — stored in a jar?
That's a good argument to have one's DNA registered — at birth. In case it ever ends up inside a rape victim or on a murder scene, you know... Somehow, that has not persuaded Americans to mandate DNA-registration. Not yet, anyway. But, as I said, personal assets are not protected anywhere near as well by our laws, as the persons themselves...
It is even less hard — for the government — to construct the opposite. In fact, they already did — the no-fly lists exist...
Take a look at the Second Amendment — the right to "keep and bear arms" does not need to be constructed or otherwise derived — it is explicitly listed. And what? Even in the most liberal places — like Texas — you must have a license for it. Which means, it is not a right, but merely a privilege...
There may well be in certain cases — but it is not (or should not be) a dirty word, I agree.
Yes, although one point of view may be better than another, a compromise is often worse than either of the "extremes"...
At least, we know of their party-affiliation from the article. Had the gentlemen been Democrats, the affiliation would've been omitted.
This is not, in itself outrageous or even stupid. Should an orbit-bound rocket lose control, for example, the results may well be far more disastrous than 9/11...
Perhaps, they borrowed the illogic from the Labor Unions? You know, the guys, who insist, foreign manufacturing be following the same procedures and workers be paid the same as in here?
I believe, that requirement — whatever its Constitutionality — applies only to people arriving into the US, not leaving. Indeed, you aren't declaring anything upon leaving — neither the Customs nor Border Patrol have anything to do with passengers departing.
Also, it was introduced, when $10k meant a lot more money, than it does today. I don't know, when, exactly, but I do remember seeing it on the Custom form in the early 90ies. The $10k even then was $17.5k in today's dollars. But, I think, the requirement is much older...
I'm far more concerned, whether the smell of my honestly-earned money is any different from that of the laundered drug proceeds. I suspect, the smell is exactly the same and, should I ever choose to cross the border with substantial cash, these devices will point me out. A major loophole in American (and English) legal system, allows seizure of "suspect" assets even if the person himself can not be arrested.
Now, why would an honest citizen need to carry his cash with him?.. Oh, well...
My objection was not to merits or lack thereof of a particular OS, but to the practice of placing the burden of research on the audience (and opponents).
Whatever it is you are stating, should be backed by evidence. It is best to include the links with the statement being supported, but it can be tedious. So, links should be provided upon request — without any lip like "just google it yourself"...
Oh, but "reasonable" is a term with such a wide interpretation, you drive a train through it — sideways...
Ah, yes, the famous "why can't we be more like Europe" whine.
Well, you can not board a train anonymously in Europe either — so, in that regard, we are "like Europe" already. Or do you believe, European police don't have access to the rail passengers?.. Of course, they do — and it does not even cause an outrage, unlike here...
A very explicitly spelled-out right to "keep and bear arms" is readily infringed upon all over the nation. Even the most liberal locales — like Texas — require you to obtain a license. And it can be suspended even there upon a mere accusation of a crime.
In less liberal locales — like New York — the Executive can withdraw the license at any moment and for any reason — or without reason at all. Says so on the document itself... In other words, over the generations even that right turned into a privilege.
And that, once again, is a right, that is quite explicitly enumerated in the Constitution — for better or worse. What are we to expect for a right, that exists (or not) only by implication and must be derived from another or, worse, from the well-meaning but nebulous 9th Amendment?
If the First Amendment were interpreted this way, you could be banned from using newspapers or radio for your speech — and it would not have been an infringement, because you can still talk to your friends...
Nope, that still requires a "driver's license" — a government's permission to drive your own car on any road, to which the public has legal access. And the Executive government can withdraw that permission without bothering with the Judiciary.
Nope, can't do that either. Not legally.
It takes a judge's decision — as the terms of your release before trial. Judiciary can suspend your rights. Executive should not be able to — but, in the case of travel, they do just that with the "no-fly" lists. Which was my point.
The bracelets are an alternative to being in jail — having your freedoms suspended by the Judiciary, not Executive. Executive can arrest you — limiting your freedoms temporarily — but they can not deprive a citizen of his rights for very long without a successful a successful trial.
I've been around the world quite a bit, but I have never been arrested. Nor do I accept that as a requirement to holding (and putting forth) an opinion.
But Michael Savage can not — without causing the Bobbies any problems whatsoever.
Stupid like what? Keeping understandables out? I would not call it "stupid" — quite the contrary — but, unfortunately, we aren't that. Not any more...
In that case, the "no-fly" lists are, indeed, unconstitutional — and the ACLU are asleep at the wheel. Perhaps, having aligned themselves over the past decades with the Far Left of the American politics, they don't want to further hamper a Far Left President... Or, maybe, they are just disorganized and lacking decent members and funds — as eventually befalls all Far Left organizations, who don't manage to secure government funding while in their heyday.
Well, in that case we don't have a right to anonymous speech either. But numerous people on this and other forums would disagree — sometimes violently...
In my humble opinion, any right — speech, travel, carrying weapons — must be exercisable anonymously, or else it is not really a right at all, but a mere privilege.
Unfortunately, I — a first generation immigrant — have been rather disappointed by Americans generally agreeing, the government should be limiting certain rights with "common sense", even if "sometimes" it could go "over the top".
Why? Seems like exactly the opposite — DEA does know, Amtrak has the information, and DEA arranged for the information to be available to them at ease...
I'm not surprised either, but I don't see, how this is unconstitutional. The Constitution has nothing on the right to travel and, if you ask a government official, you'll quickly realize, they consider traveling to be a privilege instead.
You can not buy an Amtrak ticket anonymously. And you can not give your ticket to anyone else. With air-tickets this fraud was put upon us (years before 9/11) with the argument, that the airline and the law-enforcement need to screen the passenger names against list of criminals — so they need to know all names in advance.
But most Amtrak tickets are purchased within hours before departure, AFAIK, so this argument would not hold.
We need the traveling to be explicitly declared a right, that only the Judiciary can suspend after a trial — rather than a mere privilege, that the Executive can withdraw on their whim (such as by adding you to a "no-fly" list) or, indeed, demanding to "see your papers" (and recording them for future use).
I can't see it happening any time soon, though. Bushitler-created TSA has only expanded under the Nobel Peace Prize Administration — and now insists on covering not just air-travel, but all mass transit. Driving a personal car has required a government permission for near a century, and being driven by someone else is increasingly difficult too.
Oh, I didn't mean, it is only the low-level employees themselves, who must all be fired (though some of the ought to be). What I said applies equally to managers — whom their managers are reluctant to fire because it is both difficult to do and hurts the person's own record.
If you don't pay, IRS will put a lien on your house. If you still don't pay, the house will be sold — and police (with guns) will arrive to kick you out from it.
Don't be stupid disputing the obvious — all governments world-wide collect revenues at gun-point. It is normal and the only way possible. It just means, the monies thus collected should only be used in situations, where weapons would take place: enforcing laws and fighting foreign enemies.
Corporations don't have the means of coercing people to buy their services, don't even bring them up here.
Again, corporations are not (normally) in a position to coerce anybody to buy their services — only the government is in such a position and its role in our lives must be minimized, not perpetually expanded.
Your link is to a description of some outrage committed by Comcast — which is funny, because the company is a book-case example of crony capitalism: it (and other cable giants) grew out of government's idiocy of giving them monopoly, and their CEO today plays golf with the President.
Corporations are not any nicer, than they have to be — in order to compete. But monopolies — like Comcast — don't have anyone to compete with. And the government is the biggest and harshest monopoly of all. One can cancel their Comcast bill — even if it can be infuriatingly ridiculous. Now try opting out of Social Security...
Wishful thinking. Federal employees are practically unfirable. For one, they are — bizarrely — unionized (to protect them from their employer — us), but that's only part of the reason, for corporations with unionized workforce still do fire bad workers, even if it is harder for them to do so than it ought to be.
The real problem is that firing an underling reflects poorly on his manager(s). This is also the truth everywhere, of course, but in normal enterprises there is this dirty and otherwise reprehensible "profit" to think about, so a bad employee can still be fired even if the manager's record gets hurt in the process. But the glorious government enterprises do not defile their mission with concerns for profit — their revenue is collected for them at gun point by the IRS.
Hence, practically nobody ever gets fired from government — "counseling" and "discipline" is the worst, that usually happens to our civil servants. Is it not time, we put our health care into their capable hands? Oh, wait...
What's with this "dwarf" nonsense — and big planetarism? We demand equal gravity for all planets!
And it, probably, should not. Modern technology already does — or soon will — allow sending a "zerg rush" of remotely-operated drones to overwhelm enemy's defenses. Remotely operated by the new generations raised on video-games — and often too fat for personal fighting anyway.
Oh, and it is not just aircraft — the same logic would apply to tanks and ships. Once you no longer need to care about the soft pink body(ies) inside the military vehicle, you can stuff if with much more weaponry, make it do things which would've killed the human personnel before (like 20-g turns), and comfortably send it on "suicide" missions.