There's a lot pf 18th C literature, including the Federalist Papers, which elaborates on the issue. The distinction between a republic and a democracy is carefully laid out. In short a democracy is where a majority can pass anything that suits their fancy; the phrase "Constitutional Republic" was created to show how this new experiment was to differ. Namely that the powers of the FEDERAL government were carefully enumerated and thus limiting the power of both government and majority. Hence - NOT a democracy.
You're right. The US has (thankfully) never been a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. There is a difference. The government has powers (and the problem is that lovers of democracy... ummm... make that dictatorships... want an all-powerful, all-knowing government. And then they wonder why things collapse upon themselves.
Here's an idea. Have a government that provides the basics: protects you from invaders and insures the following of agreed upon rules; and be very careful in adding extra responsibilities.
Now for those unfamiliar with the US Constitution the above applies to the FEDERAL government. If a state wants to provide universal health care. Fine. But that is not the role (or should not be the role) of the FEDERAL government.
Why? Did the NSA not want secure encryption. All governments like secure encryption for them - what they don't like is for their adversaries to have the same. What counts is living in a country where the government is not in an adversarial position with their citizens.
Which is why I'm a small-government libertarian as opposed to those promoting an all-knowing, all-powerful bureaucracy. You know who your are.
It does to me and millions of others. If the gov't is providing a service (water) and charging a fee for said service then any portion of said fee that is put into the general fund and available to spend for x,y and z is a tax in my opinion. I consider it to be repulsive and abusive and disgusting.
Rereading your post I wonder if we're speaking past each other. Let me clarify my point.
If the cost of providing a service (along with management, planning for future contingencies, setting aside funds for future contingencies) is X dollars then any additional funds charged is a tax and not a fee.
Raising fees a Republican thing? Fee raising as a tax is very big in very democratic NY, SF, Denver and Chicago. I would love to see a breakdown on fees going into the general coffer by municipality and state and then parse it for Dem and Rep.
Most big cities are Democratic and all that I've been aware of (either living there or having friends that live there) have been continuously raising fees to serve the general coffer.
Let me explain what I mean by general coffer. Raising fees to cover a cost (say bringing water in and sewage out) is one thing. The population is paying for a service. But when the fees on water are raised, not to take care of the infrastructure, planning and future growth; but instead is to be used for x,y, and z that have nothing to do with water and sewage then I call it a hidden tax used to fill the general coffer.
NYC, for instance, in the midst of a recession cut sanitation jobs but increased parking enforcement jobs. I wonder why?
Re: "narrow personal definition of a right" I agree that is narrow, but not that it is personal.:-) Meaning that I hold a concept of rights that is more Enlightment / Individualist rather than Collectivist.
Re right to murder - now we're getting into a matter of semantics that is very difficult to get into in a setting such as this (quick posts as opposed to lengthy conversations or extensive, elaborate explanations. Let it be said that in my "narrow personal definition" of a right I make a distinction between their power to act without consequences to right.
Now source of rights. In the 18th C they used the concept God and Natural Law. I'm an athe!st (a spaghetti-monster sort of athei!t) so the God part is not convincing. What is convincing is the concept that *I* have a right over my own body (not an 18thC idea) as well as my ideas. The government's role in our life is many things - but what it is not is the violator of my rights. Government is there to enforce the social contract - "I promise not to kill you and take your stuff if you promise not to kill me and take mine."
Government did not create my ideas, did not "breathe life into me" (an 18th C phrasing - not mine). It did not give me my rights but it certainly can prevent me from exercising my right: freedom of conscience - called religion back when; freedom of speech, etc...
The concept right is something that you have qua living. It's not anything given to you - but it is something that can be infringed on or taken away. The concept "Right" is an enlightenment term; a term that had little meaning before and has been under attack from the 19th C German Romantic period on. It's a term that can only exist within the context of individual freedom and living in a state where one is a citizen (as opposed to a subject); where government is limited by a matter of law as well as culture.
I would argue that the Freedom of Speech did NOT exist in 15th C Europe; or China; or Japan or in the Muslim world. In fact the very concept of it where by a human being could speak their mind and the government COULD NOT (by law) interfere would have been considered foolishness beyond the realm of conversation. You might as well have been talking about flying and breathing under water.
While Freedom of Speech was not invented by Americans it is a relatively new phenomenom. And we see very clearly the anti-enlightment philosophies that unite in opposition to it; we also see these same philosophies appropriating enlightment terms (rights, liberal) and attaching new meanings to them. Examples include the concept of positive rights and civil rights.
What rights may I ask do you have that comes from being part of a group that you don't have as an individual? Racists may have denied individual rights to "others" but they did not create rights for themselves. If you are outraged by this - think about what you're outraged about. Reflect that what happened was the negation of rights for some; not the creation of rights for the privileged.
A key test to what is and what is not a right is by looking at where "it comes from." You have the right to speech (nobody gives you the thought or the impulse to promote that view) as opposed to the right to healthcare (in which others must provide it for you - even against their will). It you are promoting the later than you are part of the anti-enlightenment; anti-freedom; anti-liberal crowd who has appropriated sanctified terms in order to bolster the value of their positions.
The right to life is not in opposition to the right to murder. There has never been a right to murder another. Think about the definition of rights - the enlightment definition of rights to get this. (There is a right to self-defense though; and for good reason.)
The issue comes in defining speech. It's not contradictory to put limits when defining a term. Language is broad and the same word or phrase can mean different things to different people. Freedom of Speech refers to expressing ideas - political, religious, philosophical and not being punished by government for saying it. Government cannot prevent you, nor punish you for expressing your ideas even if these ideas are
hateful: Examples include overt racist speech (blacks | white| asians) are X
or wrong: Example: the earth sits on a tortoise; the earth has 4 corners; the earth was created 6000 years ago.
or inciteful and twisting facts: Example: Muhammad was a pedophile
Freedom of Speech does not, and never has, applied to saying untruths about a specific individual (slander). That is outside the scope of the definition of Freedom of Speech.
Freedom of speech is a limit on government. Government cannot say "you cannot insult the flag | president | religion | x"
Now Twitter or Facebook or Slashdot can remove people from their service for whatever reason. If we run a blog and find a contributor to be abusive or simply annoying we can remove him from our service and this is not a freedom of speech issue.
Now if I slander you. The government cannot prosecute me for saying what I said but YOU can say that my slander caused you financial harm and try to recoup said loses. Slander is knowingly (AFAIK its "knowingly") telling falsehoods about another and causing financial harm due to said falsehoods.
Example you're a programmer: and I say that you put backdoors into everything you write; insert malware and then blackmail clients to remove the malware. As a result of my lies you lost business. Therefore you can sue me for slander. Of course the flip-side to that is that I could be telling the truth and you could still sue me for slander - but that's another story.
So you don't have freedom of speech? (Don't bring up the canard about "yelling fire in crowded movie theater.")
Canard because first it's "falsely" yelling fire in crowded movie theater. And second there is a difference between political speech and slander. Freedom of speech never included that you can slander anyone you want and be free from consequences. There isn't an internal contradiction in the previous statement because one must qualify what speech means.
Now If what you mean by "unlimited freedom" is that "freedom" means whatever pops into someone head then you're correct. Freedom of Religion means, in essence, freedom of conscience; that you can have quiet enjoyment of your beliefs. Quiet enjoyment does not include freedom to kill disbelievers for "insulting" the religion.
Not quite accurate because, if you're a merchant, you are keeping your wallet up-to-date. The more blocks pass from the time the transaction occurred the more mathematically sure you are that it will not, cannot, be undone.
You are almost certainly safe after 4 blocks. The rule of thumb for financial safety is 6 blocks (about one hour). Of course if you're buying a house or a business worth millions it would be best to wait longer.:-)
The kicker some have is the issue of small transaction in which you cannot wait an hour for verification such as buying a cup of coffee or other sundry items from a grocery. Double spending can happen (though not probable) so many merchants will take accept bitcoin without verifying across multiple blocks. (At least until criminal gangs find ways of successfully double spending on a mass scale. Something that has not happened yet. AFAIK)
Good. You take on 4 people with knives breaking into your home w/o a gun. I would prefer to be able to defend myself. We did not give up the right to self-defense when we formed this country.
Why do feel it's so important to be helpless? Do you truly believe that governments don't harm their subjects? I guess you never read about the German, Russian or Chinese Revolution then. (The German revolution is more commonly considered the rise of H!t3r.
It's the right to self-defense. Why do you have a problem with that? Or do you think the police will always arrive in time to save your a$$. And, in case I'm not mistaken, there are many people who don't trust the police and don't call them. What do they do?
If anti-gun folks weren't lying about guns; the ease to get them; bs-ing about the lack of registration; arguing that people did not have the right to self-defense and
gun owners weren't concerned about confiscation or about outing and harassment by a$$holes then maybe there would be more rational discussions on this topic.
We didn't lose this fight at all. Look at the rise in free software; the rise of creative commons.
As more authors and musicians publish on their own the abuses are mitigated.
The pendulum will swing the other way in due time. It's fair for a corporation to retain rights over it's trademark.
The question has yet to be resolved are:
1. how closely related an object is the essence of the corporation. (The relationship between "Disney" and "Mickey Mouse" is very close.)
2. how much time needs to pass before competitors or others take control (and hurt the image of the corporation - Commercials with Mickey Mouse p0rn will not be in Disney's interests.).
It gets tricky. Don't think we lost. We didn't. Not by a long shot.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a lot pf 18th C literature, including the Federalist Papers, which elaborates on the issue. The distinction between a republic and a democracy is carefully laid out. In short a democracy is where a majority can pass anything that suits their fancy; the phrase "Constitutional Republic" was created to show how this new experiment was to differ. Namely that the powers of the FEDERAL government were carefully enumerated and thus limiting the power of both government and majority. Hence - NOT a democracy.
You're right. The US has (thankfully) never been a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. There is a difference. The government has powers (and the problem is that lovers of democracy ... ummm... make that dictatorships ... want an all-powerful, all-knowing government. And then they wonder why things collapse upon themselves.
Here's an idea. Have a government that provides the basics: protects you from invaders and insures the following of agreed upon rules; and be very careful in adding extra responsibilities.
Now for those unfamiliar with the US Constitution the above applies to the FEDERAL government. If a state wants to provide universal health care. Fine. But that is not the role (or should not be the role) of the FEDERAL government.
How many bombs were dropping on their head in 1993 (first WTC). How many bombs were dropping on their heads in 2001?
Maybe the topic is more complicated than Western bombing causing terrorism.
agreed.
Why? Did the NSA not want secure encryption. All governments like secure encryption for them - what they don't like is for their adversaries to have the same. What counts is living in a country where the government is not in an adversarial position with their citizens.
Which is why I'm a small-government libertarian as opposed to those promoting an all-knowing, all-powerful bureaucracy. You know who your are.
It does to me and millions of others. If the gov't is providing a service (water) and charging a fee for said service then any portion of said fee that is put into the general fund and available to spend for x,y and z is a tax in my opinion. I consider it to be repulsive and abusive and disgusting.
Rereading your post I wonder if we're speaking past each other. Let me clarify my point.
If the cost of providing a service (along with management, planning for future contingencies, setting aside funds for future contingencies) is X dollars then any additional funds charged is a tax and not a fee.
I hope it's trolling and not simply being earnest and uninformed.
Raising fees a Republican thing? Fee raising as a tax is very big in very democratic NY, SF, Denver and Chicago. I would love to see a breakdown on fees going into the general coffer by municipality and state and then parse it for Dem and Rep.
Most big cities are Democratic and all that I've been aware of (either living there or having friends that live there) have been continuously raising fees to serve the general coffer.
Let me explain what I mean by general coffer. Raising fees to cover a cost (say bringing water in and sewage out) is one thing. The population is paying for a service. But when the fees on water are raised, not to take care of the infrastructure, planning and future growth; but instead is to be used for x,y, and z that have nothing to do with water and sewage then I call it a hidden tax used to fill the general coffer.
NYC, for instance, in the midst of a recession cut sanitation jobs but increased parking enforcement jobs. I wonder why?
Re: "narrow personal definition of a right" I agree that is narrow, but not that it is personal. :-) Meaning that I hold a concept of rights that is more Enlightment / Individualist rather than Collectivist.
Re right to murder - now we're getting into a matter of semantics that is very difficult to get into in a setting such as this (quick posts as opposed to lengthy conversations or extensive, elaborate explanations. Let it be said that in my "narrow personal definition" of a right I make a distinction between their power to act without consequences to right.
Now source of rights. In the 18th C they used the concept God and Natural Law. I'm an athe!st (a spaghetti-monster sort of athei!t) so the God part is not convincing. What is convincing is the concept that *I* have a right over my own body (not an 18thC idea) as well as my ideas. The government's role in our life is many things - but what it is not is the violator of my rights. Government is there to enforce the social contract - "I promise not to kill you and take your stuff if you promise not to kill me and take mine."
Government did not create my ideas, did not "breathe life into me" (an 18th C phrasing - not mine). It did not give me my rights but it certainly can prevent me from exercising my right: freedom of conscience - called religion back when; freedom of speech, etc...
Is raising taxes and fees more of a Republican thing or a Democratic thing?
Now that's funny.
The concept right is something that you have qua living. It's not anything given to you - but it is something that can be infringed on or taken away. The concept "Right" is an enlightenment term; a term that had little meaning before and has been under attack from the 19th C German Romantic period on. It's a term that can only exist within the context of individual freedom and living in a state where one is a citizen (as opposed to a subject); where government is limited by a matter of law as well as culture.
I would argue that the Freedom of Speech did NOT exist in 15th C Europe; or China; or Japan or in the Muslim world. In fact the very concept of it where by a human being could speak their mind and the government COULD NOT (by law) interfere would have been considered foolishness beyond the realm of conversation. You might as well have been talking about flying and breathing under water.
While Freedom of Speech was not invented by Americans it is a relatively new phenomenom. And we see very clearly the anti-enlightment philosophies that unite in opposition to it; we also see these same philosophies appropriating enlightment terms (rights, liberal) and attaching new meanings to them. Examples include the concept of positive rights and civil rights.
What rights may I ask do you have that comes from being part of a group that you don't have as an individual? Racists may have denied individual rights to "others" but they did not create rights for themselves. If you are outraged by this - think about what you're outraged about. Reflect that what happened was the negation of rights for some; not the creation of rights for the privileged.
A key test to what is and what is not a right is by looking at where "it comes from." You have the right to speech (nobody gives you the thought or the impulse to promote that view) as opposed to the right to healthcare (in which others must provide it for you - even against their will). It you are promoting the later than you are part of the anti-enlightenment; anti-freedom; anti-liberal crowd who has appropriated sanctified terms in order to bolster the value of their positions.
The right to life is not in opposition to the right to murder. There has never been a right to murder another. Think about the definition of rights - the enlightment definition of rights to get this. (There is a right to self-defense though; and for good reason.)
Republicans oppose safe, self-driving cars? For what reason?
clueless reactionaries!?!
lol
The issue comes in defining speech. It's not contradictory to put limits when defining a term. Language is broad and the same word or phrase can mean different things to different people. Freedom of Speech refers to expressing ideas - political, religious, philosophical and not being punished by government for saying it. Government cannot prevent you, nor punish you for expressing your ideas even if these ideas are
hateful: Examples include overt racist speech (blacks | white| asians) are X
or wrong: Example: the earth sits on a tortoise; the earth has 4 corners; the earth was created 6000 years ago.
or inciteful and twisting facts: Example: Muhammad was a pedophile
Freedom of Speech does not, and never has, applied to saying untruths about a specific individual (slander). That is outside the scope of the definition of Freedom of Speech.
The OP made a blanket statement about freedom(s). Therefore mentioning an individual freedom is logical statement.
OP said that "All X are Y."
I countered that by saying that X1 is not Y. Which therefore contradicts OP's original statement.
Freedom of speech is a limit on government. Government cannot say "you cannot insult the flag | president | religion | x"
Now Twitter or Facebook or Slashdot can remove people from their service for whatever reason. If we run a blog and find a contributor to be abusive or simply annoying we can remove him from our service and this is not a freedom of speech issue.
Now if I slander you. The government cannot prosecute me for saying what I said but YOU can say that my slander caused you financial harm and try to recoup said loses. Slander is knowingly (AFAIK its "knowingly") telling falsehoods about another and causing financial harm due to said falsehoods.
Example you're a programmer: and I say that you put backdoors into everything you write; insert malware and then blackmail clients to remove the malware. As a result of my lies you lost business. Therefore you can sue me for slander. Of course the flip-side to that is that I could be telling the truth and you could still sue me for slander - but that's another story.
So you don't have freedom of speech? (Don't bring up the canard about "yelling fire in crowded movie theater.")
Canard because first it's "falsely" yelling fire in crowded movie theater. And second there is a difference between political speech and slander. Freedom of speech never included that you can slander anyone you want and be free from consequences. There isn't an internal contradiction in the previous statement because one must qualify what speech means.
Now If what you mean by "unlimited freedom" is that "freedom" means whatever pops into someone head then you're correct. Freedom of Religion means, in essence, freedom of conscience; that you can have quiet enjoyment of your beliefs. Quiet enjoyment does not include freedom to kill disbelievers for "insulting" the religion.
Not quite accurate because, if you're a merchant, you are keeping your wallet up-to-date. The more blocks pass from the time the transaction occurred the more mathematically sure you are that it will not, cannot, be undone.
:-)
You are almost certainly safe after 4 blocks. The rule of thumb for financial safety is 6 blocks (about one hour). Of course if you're buying a house or a business worth millions it would be best to wait longer.
The kicker some have is the issue of small transaction in which you cannot wait an hour for verification such as buying a cup of coffee or other sundry items from a grocery. Double spending can happen (though not probable) so many merchants will take accept bitcoin without verifying across multiple blocks. (At least until criminal gangs find ways of successfully double spending on a mass scale. Something that has not happened yet. AFAIK)
Good. You take on 4 people with knives breaking into your home w/o a gun. I would prefer to be able to defend myself. We did not give up the right to self-defense when we formed this country.
Why do feel it's so important to be helpless? Do you truly believe that governments don't harm their subjects? I guess you never read about the German, Russian or Chinese Revolution then. (The German revolution is more commonly considered the rise of H!t3r.
It's the right to self-defense. Why do you have a problem with that? Or do you think the police will always arrive in time to save your a$$. And, in case I'm not mistaken, there are many people who don't trust the police and don't call them. What do they do?
If anti-gun folks weren't lying about guns; the ease to get them; bs-ing about the lack of registration; arguing that people did not have the right to self-defense and gun owners weren't concerned about confiscation or about outing and harassment by a$$holes then maybe there would be more rational discussions on this topic.
Unfortunately that's commonplace now on slashdot.
People don't seem to understand the difference between "disagree with point of view" and "troll".
We didn't lose this fight at all. Look at the rise in free software; the rise of creative commons.
As more authors and musicians publish on their own the abuses are mitigated.
The pendulum will swing the other way in due time. It's fair for a corporation to retain rights over it's trademark.
The question has yet to be resolved are:
1. how closely related an object is the essence of the corporation. (The relationship between "Disney" and "Mickey Mouse" is very close.)
2. how much time needs to pass before competitors or others take control (and hurt the image of the corporation - Commercials with Mickey Mouse p0rn will not be in Disney's interests.).
It gets tricky. Don't think we lost. We didn't. Not by a long shot.
You mean like urban centers? I live in Bklyn. There are a fair amount of minorities here. /sarc
Republicans raped a woman in your building because her son got SWATTED?
Link please. Cause I think you're trolling sackl of sh!t