Now a way must be found to prevent parents from poisoning the young minds with things the vast majority of the scientific community considers incorrect.
Do we really need to go again, through the fine examples of what that venerable "vast majority of the scientific community" once considered incorrect — but does not any more?
There's no reason to outlaw parents from teaching their children mythology as if it were commonly accepted fact
The reasons are (or would be) the same as banning schools from doing it. If you ban one without another, you are leaving a "dangerous loophole" — and all that.
The school would just lose its government funding.
Distinction without (or with little) difference. With taxes as high as they are in today's Western world, loss of government funding by an enterprise currently receiving it mean certain bankruptcy.
But this a good — if unexpected — point. Nobody wants taxpayers' monies spent on unscientific matters taught as science. But whether a particular thing is, indeed, unscientific, remains a matter of opinion. Though we seem to have the opinion in this case, do you and I feel confident enough to force our opinion on other people's children? I do not...
Which all boils down to the fact, that taxes should not be spent on education — tempting though it may be, it leads to this sort of oppression, where the government taxes everybody, but spends the taxes as only some deem correct.
Forcing government-run schools, or the private schools needing government's license to continue to exist, is easy. But that is not good enough.
Now a way must be found to prevent parents from poisoning the young minds with things, the government considers incorrect.
This is harder — and may involve asking pupils to report their parents' attempts to teach them wrong things to the government, who may then have to talk to the offenders and, in the particularly hard cases, take their children into protective custody.
so what you brought up basically has no relation to the case at hand.
The relation I alluded to was based not on the First Amendment, but on our reinterpretations of the laws and words. The similarity, in my opinion, lies in the changing of our understanding of what constitutes "disparaging" in one case and what "Freedom of Speech" is in the other.
My rant was against reinterpretations of what's past and (seemingly) settled. The revisionism, if you will. Without anything in the law changing one bit, certain things become illegal (or "disparaging").
When outlawing ownership is too difficult, oppressive lawmakers limit availability of certain items — like guns or drug paraphernalia or alcohol-making equipment — by banning their sales or transport (withing or across State-lines).
If the end-users are suddenly able to make them themselves, some of these laws would not apply making us the people a little bit more free.
They spied on everybody's radio-transmissions back then. Everybody's — and caught enemy's spies thanks to that.
The "declared war vs. peacetime" distinction you are trying to make is without difference. We are at war with Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations — that Congress has not declared it is of no consequence.
one of those autism related charities should be able to front the bill.
Are there autism-related charities capable of putting forth the $150 million typically required to pay for FDA's approval?
And even if there are, I suspect, some of them might not want to to do that — under some legitimate-sounding reason — because it might eliminate their very reason for existing... Just as I would not trust "anti-poverty" politicians to do anything to really eliminate it — thus ending their political careers...
How much did it cost Monsanto to get approval for ritalin?
No idea about this particular case. But an average cost of approval of a new drug is over $150 million. According to the same page, that increases the development cost of an average new drug by about 50%.
Gaining a drug's approval by the Food and Drug Administration in the US — and similar government agencies in other countries — is a very expensive process. The expense is normally offset for by the patent(s) granted to the pharmaceutical company, that developed the drug, which make it an exclusive maker/seller of the medicine for decades.
However, if the drug is long-known — and only needs an approval for new application — who will undertake to pay for the approval, if there is no way to patent it and the approval will allow all drug-makers (both domestic and foreign) to put their own versions on the market?
This is quite clearly a selection of things connected by 'or' statements. At best you could claim the 'and' at the end says that you are only free to assemble for redress of grivances.
There is an oft-repeated argument, that the Second Amendment only allows "keeping and bearing arms" by the members of a "well regulated militia" — even though nothing of the kind is stated in the Amendment's text. The militia is mentioned, but there is no condition set, that an armed person must be a member.
If, indeed, the same restrictive reading were applied to the First, then your freedom of speech would be limited to petitioning the government — as I stated. I agree with you, that such reading would be quite ridiculous...
Well, it's not like people don't treat the rest of the Bill of Rights the same way
Well, the venerable ACLU would fight for the First and the Fourth Amendments, for example. But not for the Second... Having aligned themselves with Illiberals on too many occasions, they got mostly contempt from the rest of the country — and thus lost their donations.
NRA fights for the Second Amendment rights, but they are ridiculed (and fought) by morons, who don't realize, that if the First Amendment were interpreted the way they wish to interpret the Second, our Free Speech right would be limited only to petitioning the government — and only for redress of grievances...
It sucks and is getting worse... As Jefferson warned:
“When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe.”
No wonder, the large cities tend to be the most Illiberal...
You were stating, that a legal difference exists between payment and a mere "tip". I doubt it strongly...
The onus of intent or proof lies within the accuser. Even if they got fined/identified/whatever, in the end its up to the authorities to make proof that it was, in fact, an illegal transaction.
Unfortunately — and this is a giant loophole in the American (and, possibly, British) legal system — the accused's property is not at all as protected as his person. The government can confiscate property immediately — without bothering with the Judiciary. They can't lock you up, but they can confiscate your car, cash (we suspect it is drug money, so we take it away), and even freeze bank accounts...
In the article I linked to, the couple's family car was confiscated on the spot — on the Executive official say-so. That alone would severely impede the accused's ability to defend himself, would not it? Simply showing up in court suddenly becomes very difficult...
the govt can override constitutional rights if there is a compelling societal/governmental/national interest
This assertion is the road to slavery. Seriously...
there's a compelling national interest in regulating it closely, even if it impinges on the (implied) constitutional right to free travel.
Well, we are "regulating it closely" and yet, as you acknowledge, car accidents remain the primary cause of death. Having given up an essential liberty — what did we gain? Looks to me like that famous "lose both and deserve neither" situation...
I much more quickly get my dander up over the no fly list. What is the purpose of this list?
Absolutely. But it is justified with much the same reasoning you are defending:
traveling is a privilege, not a right;
the Executive government needs to keep certain "dangerous" people from flying.
Once you've allowed the Executive to "override constitutional rights", they can do anything.
A couple got fined — and had their car confiscated for over a week — because the Executive government (no Judiciary oversight) suspected the husband of being an unlicensed cabbie and the wife of being his fare.
It took them weeks to convince the authorities, they are, in fact, married and the husband was just dropping the wife off.
Now imagine the same couple being merely friends and the cop observing the money (a mere tip, not a payment — though I suspect, the distinction you are making is without difference) changing hands... They'd never convince anyone...
Doesn't licensing make sense in this context?
- to ensure that the majority of drivers on the road have at least demonstrated minimal competency in driving by passing a mandatory test
- to ensure that drivers are covered by insurance (which i think is a pre-req to getting a licence in most places)
- to link vehicles with their drivers for the purposes of identification, for liability settlement in case there is an accident, theft etc
Oh, it does "make sense", sure. Unfortunately, it also removes the "clear bright line" between the right and the privilege. And in some particularly Illiberal jurisdictions, the Executive government has been abusing its power for decades. For example, in NYC you can only appeal a "moving violation" in a "traffic court" — where the presiding clerk is, actually, an Executive government's employee. Yes, he is working for the same entity as the policeman, who issued the ticket.
And the license-plate numbers are also quite offensive — they are an equivalent to mandatory carrying an identification on your person at all times. Worse — even in the most oppressive country, the ID can only be seen by police if they ask for it, whereas the license-plate is visible to all, all the time.
It doesn't seem that unreasonable in light of the amount of damage already caused by licensed drivers every year. Completely doing away with licensing and thereby allowing even those who have failed their driving tests to drive would seem counter productive.
Whether it "makes sense" or not, it turns an essential right, which can only be taken away by the Judiciary (from particularly bad drivers, for example), into a privilege, which the Executive grants and withdraws on its whim. You "loose both and deserve neither" — plenty of people drive with a valid license, and quite a few drive without one today.
I don't think, the situation would be worsened much, if we switched to sentencing those convicted (by the jury of their peers) of particularly bad driving to certain number of years suspension of the right. We do that already, but it is done by the Executive branch without any oversight — and we all know, how abuse-prone such arrangements are.
No, actually, that's not true either. Although the gun-ownership is explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights as a right, even the most liberal locales (like Texas) treat it as a mere privilege — and, somehow, we are all Ok with that.
Slashdot Mirror
I recommend this site for raising awareness, starting the healing, and organizing revolutions.
Do we really need to go again, through the fine examples of what that venerable "vast majority of the scientific community" once considered incorrect — but does not any more?
The reasons are (or would be) the same as banning schools from doing it. If you ban one without another, you are leaving a "dangerous loophole" — and all that.
Distinction without (or with little) difference. With taxes as high as they are in today's Western world, loss of government funding by an enterprise currently receiving it mean certain bankruptcy.
But this a good — if unexpected — point. Nobody wants taxpayers' monies spent on unscientific matters taught as science. But whether a particular thing is, indeed, unscientific, remains a matter of opinion. Though we seem to have the opinion in this case, do you and I feel confident enough to force our opinion on other people's children? I do not...
Which all boils down to the fact, that taxes should not be spent on education — tempting though it may be, it leads to this sort of oppression, where the government taxes everybody, but spends the taxes as only some deem correct.
Hence the Libertarianism...
Forcing government-run schools, or the private schools needing government's license to continue to exist, is easy. But that is not good enough.
Now a way must be found to prevent parents from poisoning the young minds with things, the government considers incorrect.
This is harder — and may involve asking pupils to report their parents' attempts to teach them wrong things to the government, who may then have to talk to the offenders and, in the particularly hard cases, take their children into protective custody.
The relation I alluded to was based not on the First Amendment, but on our reinterpretations of the laws and words. The similarity, in my opinion, lies in the changing of our understanding of what constitutes "disparaging" in one case and what "Freedom of Speech" is in the other.
My rant was against reinterpretations of what's past and (seemingly) settled. The revisionism, if you will. Without anything in the law changing one bit, certain things become illegal (or "disparaging").
When outlawing ownership is too difficult, oppressive lawmakers limit availability of certain items — like guns or drug paraphernalia or alcohol-making equipment — by banning their sales or transport (withing or across State-lines).
If the end-users are suddenly able to make them themselves, some of these laws would not apply making us the people a little bit more free.
No laws have changed, but what was once perfectly acceptable — indeed, a registered trademark — no longer is. And the other way around.
"Redskins" are just a name, but there are worse signs of the changes... For example, University of Hawaii recently prohibited a student group to hand-out copies of the Constitution. The administrators' reasoning was: "This isn’t really the ’60s anymore" and "people can’t really protest like that anymore".
Obviously, the First Amendment has not changed in 50 years, it is just being reinterpreted. And so is the understanding of "disparaging".
The only limits on recording — back then and now — is due to the capacity. Had they been able to record everything back then, they would have.
No, I'm not saying, today's recordings are justified. Just putting things into perspective...
They spied on everybody's radio-transmissions back then. Everybody's — and caught enemy's spies thanks to that.
The "declared war vs. peacetime" distinction you are trying to make is without difference. We are at war with Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations — that Congress has not declared it is of no consequence.
To intercept the German (and Japanese) communications, our spies listened to everything they could — and recorded whatever they deemed useful.
Today's snowdens would've been outraged...
The same lawmakers should ban airlines (and other transportation providers) from offering "First Class" travel.
Oh, and, certainly, the namesake Fast Lanes — now increasingly reserved for customers of E-ZPass and similar payment systems — should be banned too.
The bulk — if not all — of that is already committed, no doubt.
That may be...
Are there autism-related charities capable of putting forth the $150 million typically required to pay for FDA's approval?
And even if there are, I suspect, some of them might not want to to do that — under some legitimate-sounding reason — because it might eliminate their very reason for existing... Just as I would not trust "anti-poverty" politicians to do anything to really eliminate it — thus ending their political careers...
No idea about this particular case. But an average cost of approval of a new drug is over $150 million. According to the same page, that increases the development cost of an average new drug by about 50%.
Gaining a drug's approval by the Food and Drug Administration in the US — and similar government agencies in other countries — is a very expensive process. The expense is normally offset for by the patent(s) granted to the pharmaceutical company, that developed the drug, which make it an exclusive maker/seller of the medicine for decades.
However, if the drug is long-known — and only needs an approval for new application — who will undertake to pay for the approval, if there is no way to patent it and the approval will allow all drug-makers (both domestic and foreign) to put their own versions on the market?
There is an oft-repeated argument, that the Second Amendment only allows "keeping and bearing arms" by the members of a "well regulated militia" — even though nothing of the kind is stated in the Amendment's text. The militia is mentioned, but there is no condition set, that an armed person must be a member.
If, indeed, the same restrictive reading were applied to the First, then your freedom of speech would be limited to petitioning the government — as I stated. I agree with you, that such reading would be quite ridiculous...
Well, the venerable ACLU would fight for the First and the Fourth Amendments, for example. But not for the Second... Having aligned themselves with Illiberals on too many occasions, they got mostly contempt from the rest of the country — and thus lost their donations.
NRA fights for the Second Amendment rights, but they are ridiculed (and fought) by morons, who don't realize, that if the First Amendment were interpreted the way they wish to interpret the Second, our Free Speech right would be limited only to petitioning the government — and only for redress of grievances...
It sucks and is getting worse... As Jefferson warned:
No wonder, the large cities tend to be the most Illiberal...
Thankfully, our current President is both technologically-savvy to understand the problem and committed to openness and transparency in government to want to fix it. Is not he?
You were stating, that a legal difference exists between payment and a mere "tip". I doubt it strongly...
Unfortunately — and this is a giant loophole in the American (and, possibly, British) legal system — the accused's property is not at all as protected as his person. The government can confiscate property immediately — without bothering with the Judiciary. They can't lock you up, but they can confiscate your car, cash (we suspect it is drug money, so we take it away), and even freeze bank accounts...
In the article I linked to, the couple's family car was confiscated on the spot — on the Executive official say-so. That alone would severely impede the accused's ability to defend himself, would not it? Simply showing up in court suddenly becomes very difficult...
This assertion is the road to slavery. Seriously...
Well, we are "regulating it closely" and yet, as you acknowledge, car accidents remain the primary cause of death. Having given up an essential liberty — what did we gain? Looks to me like that famous "lose both and deserve neither" situation...
Absolutely. But it is justified with much the same reasoning you are defending:
Once you've allowed the Executive to "override constitutional rights", they can do anything.
A couple got fined — and had their car confiscated for over a week — because the Executive government (no Judiciary oversight) suspected the husband of being an unlicensed cabbie and the wife of being his fare.
It took them weeks to convince the authorities, they are, in fact, married and the husband was just dropping the wife off.
Now imagine the same couple being merely friends and the cop observing the money (a mere tip, not a payment — though I suspect, the distinction you are making is without difference) changing hands... They'd never convince anyone...
Oh, it does "make sense", sure. Unfortunately, it also removes the "clear bright line" between the right and the privilege. And in some particularly Illiberal jurisdictions, the Executive government has been abusing its power for decades. For example, in NYC you can only appeal a "moving violation" in a "traffic court" — where the presiding clerk is, actually, an Executive government's employee. Yes, he is working for the same entity as the policeman, who issued the ticket.
And the license-plate numbers are also quite offensive — they are an equivalent to mandatory carrying an identification on your person at all times. Worse — even in the most oppressive country, the ID can only be seen by police if they ask for it, whereas the license-plate is visible to all, all the time.
Whether it "makes sense" or not, it turns an essential right, which can only be taken away by the Judiciary (from particularly bad drivers, for example), into a privilege, which the Executive grants and withdraws on its whim. You "loose both and deserve neither" — plenty of people drive with a valid license, and quite a few drive without one today.
I don't think, the situation would be worsened much, if we switched to sentencing those convicted (by the jury of their peers) of particularly bad driving to certain number of years suspension of the right. We do that already, but it is done by the Executive branch without any oversight — and we all know, how abuse-prone such arrangements are.
By this logic, simply walking on the street should also be considered a privilege, rather than a right.
Ergo, the logic is invalid. Had you read my post more carefully, you could've spared yourself the embarrassment.
No, actually, that's not true either. Although the gun-ownership is explicitly enumerated in the Bill of Rights as a right, even the most liberal locales (like Texas) treat it as a mere privilege — and, somehow, we are all Ok with that.
Bushitler wouldn't be in office forever. Hoping for a change, we finally have a real chance of electing a President, who is both technologically savvy and committed to open government!
Oh, wait...