I'm not saying that a totalitarian state cannot arise here; and the rise of the nanny state is truly disturbing. However there are many out there that think that the police and army will automatically do what they are told; that they would fire on their brothers and sons and fathers even if they felt it was wrong. I don't think so. I think many, many would resign long before that point and the political leadership pushing said policies will be facing serious constitutional and electoral push-back.
Now, can the worst case scenario - a totalitarian government - arise? Yes it is possible. But if you are worried about that then all the more reason to support and promote the 2nd A.
I did read your post and I summarized the indentured servant aspect in the bottom portion of the post. The fact that taxis, according you lobbied to make slavery legal doesn't apply to what Uber is doing today.
Now, re the claim of taxis and slavery I would like to see some links.
Slavery ended 150 years ago.
I doubt very much that the same companies that ran hansom cabs 150 years ago are still around today.
And I guess you're unaware of an event that took place about 150 years ago. The commander-in-chief "Abe Somebody" asked a top general to put down a rebellion taking place. And wouldn't you know it... this general not only refused to lead the attacks but he, if I recall, actually joined the rebellion.
The commander in chief, in case you didn't know it, is NOT supreme. The oath which military personnel and the commander-in-chief take speaks of defending the constitution. It also speaks of following orders. HOWEVER, in the case mentioned above, we're talking about a disconnect between the constitution and the orders given by the CIC. If you think military people are going to blindly follow the CIC you're sorely mistaken.
Then, I suppose, you're opposed to the concept of the government limiting the supply of medallion cabs. The price (in NYC) has now soared to way over a million dollars.
Uber and Lyft, by the way, is not charging the cabbie anything until he has chosen to use the service.The cabby knows exactly how much money he is getting before he even picks up the passenger. There is nothing linking Uber to indentured servitude.
For your example to hold water the scenario would have to be along the line of:
1. Uber pays for transport for a worker from Old World to New World (in the 18th c it was England to America, now, for example it may be India to America)
2. Uber tells worker that they can work their way free by driving cab and paying for their passage to America
3. The profit made by the worker is either non-existent (hence he never pays for his passage) or it takes an exorbitant amount of time (whatever that is).
The 13th applied only to US slaves. I am against expanding it's definition to slaves in other countries whose labor is used by US companies in either a direct or indirect fashion (the use of sub-contractors).
I would, absolutely, and without equivocation, go for a law (and even amendment if necessary) to prevent the importation of goods made by slave labor. (Slave labor will have to be defined - and there will be significant debate over what is and what is not slave labor; and what percentage of a product can have a slave labor component before the law is triggered.)
(Example 1: Country X's oil workers are slaves. The oil is used to power factories in country Y. Is the product made by those factories subject to the law?)
(Example 2: Country X's oil workers are slaves. The oil is used to power factories in country X. Is the product made by those factories subject to the law?)
(Example 3: Country X's oil workers are slaves. The same (foreign) company which drills the oil owns the factories. Are the product made by those factories subject to the law? Even if the product was designed, prototyped and supported elsewhere? - think iPhones here)
Re indentured servants in the US. Their employers should go to jail if US citizens (plus fine) and if not US citizens be deported (and fined - unless with diplomatic immunity).
True. Very true. Cryptocurrencies are not anonymous and can be used to track transaction history. But it is still better (for privacy), faster, and cheaper than credit card transactions. It would take considerably more effort on the part of the gov't than aggregating credit card data which implies that they are after *you* versus simply trolling for information. (That's trolling in the trolling for fish sense - not the bbs concept of trolling)
It would bring privacy (in this respect) back to the pre-internet age. If the gov't wanted to track *you* they would get a court order and spend effort tracking *you*. The effort (dollars and hours) meant that they would have to consider *you* to be a worthy target and not simply data to be aggregated.
Not in my experience. Most of these "nuts" are quite familiar with the US Consitution. Article I Section 8; 10th Amendment, 4th Amendment.
Re the 13th A as important as that is - it's close to as irrelevant in the modern political context as the 3rd is. (You do know what that is without googling - right?)
Seriously - you do realize that the military, is made of people, most of whom care deeply about the Constitution. You must hold these men and women in utter contempt if think that they will automatically follow orders to gun down their brothers, fathers, children and cousins.
I guess you haven't heard of sheriff and police organizations who are publicly refusing to obey some of these laws. (This is a constitutional crisis that should be dealt with sooner rather than later).
Government is there to protect your rights - not give you rights. (At least that is the Enlightenment view of rights and not the German Romantic / Anti-Enlightenment view).
In other words:
You have your thoughts. You express them. Does the government
A) protect your expression.
B) have the power to determine whether your thoughts are deemed worthy or legitimate enough to express.
If you said B then you are saying that the government "gives" you the freedom to express yourself. If you said A then it does not come from government. And ideally the government will be there to protect you from physical harm.
I completely agree with you. It's not a cultural artifact. It's a creature that died millions of years before homo sapiens existed and Mongolia didn't exist in any way shape or form. The indian subcontinent had not yet "barreled" into asia.
What people are saying is that the border should not be open; that emigration to the US needs to be curtailed and overseen and limits placed.
The US went from 130 million to 300 million in 60 yrs (1940-2000). At that rate of growth (and it's increasing) the US will be at 1 billion before the turn of the century - almost entirely due to immigration.
At what point do we say no more?
Who decides?
You have obscenely intricate (and ridiculous) zoning laws and many say "Oh that's needed." But we can't say no to people entering the country without being called a rightwing nutjob who promotes ethnic cleansing?
What makes you think we don't have sensible gun legislation? What legislation would you have in place that we don't have now? How will legislation stop criminals and terrorists getting weapons? Does legislation prevent people from buying dr*gs?
It won't work because too many people think that the 2nd Amendment is a good idea; that when we formed a government we did not give up the right to self-defense. Outlawing guns won't work for the simple reason that such laws will not pass.
The term baby boomer keeps expanding. First it applied to the birth spike from 1946-1950; then 1946-1960 and now I've seen it go up 1964!!! Checking wiki it appears that some have expanded the boomer generation to before the end of the war (1943-1964).
It's a ridiculous term as it applies to too broad a time span; you have the scenario where boomers were children of other boomers. How f*king retarded is that?
I'm sure there are millions of baby boomers (defined as up to 1964) who have children who are millenials (or much younger). A baby boomer born in 1964 who has a child at age 40 (2004) would have a child in 5th or 6th grade.
Because illiterate rednecks be rednecking. There's no reasonable argument against solar farms, and there's nothing dubious about it's ability to generate power. FFS you can cover your roof with them, half-assedly, and power your whole house from the electricity generated and stored in batteries.
That town is full of asshats, plain and simple.
And the illiterate rednecks from Martha's Vineyard rejected wind farms. Let me revise your post:
"There's no reasonable argument against windfarms, and there's nothing dubious about it's ability to generate power. FFS you can cover your rooflawn with them, half-assedly, and power your whole house from the electricity generated and stored in batteries. That townMartha's Vineyard is full of asshats, plain and simple."
And of course we need Imperial Washington telling every state how to act. Laws should be made by the President or the appropriate executive branch bureaucracy; approved by congress and governors of the 50 jurisdictions should enact the Laws / Regulations made by the Executive Branch.
/sarc
Maybe, just maybe, there are other issues here. (Such as the FCC "preempting state law")
Right. Get rid of the no fly rule for people in the country. If you *truly* belong on the list then the evidence should be brought forth. Either you are a dangerous individual or your name ought to be cleared and removed from the list.
The problem with universal health care is that people can rightly say that they don't want to fund for another person's foolish choices (being overweight, taking drugs, etc...) and the government can then force you to act in a certain way (force you to make the correct choice - drink less coffee, eat more vegetables, no alcohol - whatever is the position of the day).
The more power you give to the government to do "good" the more power it has to do anything and the less power you have over yourself. In creating a nanny state you create a police state. Officers look into your car to see if you're wearing seat belts, unregulated lemonade stands run by 10 year olds in front of their house are ticketed and closed.
The concept behind limited government (especially a limited Federal government) is that you have directed this government to do a few things only and everything outside of that is not within their scope of action. It is left to the individual or the state.
I don't know of any left wing theocracies (except maybe the spiritual franciscans) but too many people take the approach "not left" therefore "right." And the more "not left" you are the more "right-wing" you are.
Ayn Rand, for example. is considered "extreme" right wing (even though she is an atheist).
The Federalist Papers were never abandoned. They were the arguments used in order to pass the constitution. I am a classical liberal and you make a good distinction between classical liberals and libertarians. But you are wrong re taxes and welfare.
Welfare in the 18th and 19th C was not conceived as it is today - and you know this as there wasn't a bureaucracy to transfer wealth from one set of people to another. I, for one, in case it matters to this discussion, am less concerned about income transfer to poor people than I am about the micromanagement of people's lives through the IRS, zoning, "seat -belt" type of nanny-state laws.
Re libertarians being unreasonable - I suppose you've heard people saying that we have a right to our body as far as abortion is concerned ("WAR ON WOMEN") and yet these same people saying that we don't have a right over our own body as far as drugs, or seatbelts is concerned. So a woman who can decide to terminate her fetus cannot decide whether or not to wear a seat-belt on the way to the clinic. Yup. Makes sense to me.
And, if you're rational, you would know that many people claim the mantle of being a "true" libertarian, or marxist, or muslim (or what have you) and that the positions espoused by these many "true believers" are often in conflict; - especially when you factor in that generations go by and points of concern change you will see even more divergence.
You mention contradictory views (I suppose you're referring to the philosophical positions / stances) but can there be anymore contradictory foolishness than holding the position that one has a "right to ones body" as far as abortion is concerned but at the same time have no right to ones body as far as drugs or seat-belts are concerned?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah. Freedom too.
I'm not saying that a totalitarian state cannot arise here; and the rise of the nanny state is truly disturbing. However there are many out there that think that the police and army will automatically do what they are told; that they would fire on their brothers and sons and fathers even if they felt it was wrong. I don't think so. I think many, many would resign long before that point and the political leadership pushing said policies will be facing serious constitutional and electoral push-back.
Now, can the worst case scenario - a totalitarian government - arise? Yes it is possible. But if you are worried about that then all the more reason to support and promote the 2nd A.
I did read your post and I summarized the indentured servant aspect in the bottom portion of the post. The fact that taxis, according you lobbied to make slavery legal doesn't apply to what Uber is doing today.
Now, re the claim of taxis and slavery I would like to see some links.
Slavery ended 150 years ago.
I doubt very much that the same companies that ran hansom cabs 150 years ago are still around today.
And I guess you're unaware of an event that took place about 150 years ago. The commander-in-chief "Abe Somebody" asked a top general to put down a rebellion taking place. And wouldn't you know it ... this general not only refused to lead the attacks but he, if I recall, actually joined the rebellion.
The commander in chief, in case you didn't know it, is NOT supreme. The oath which military personnel and the commander-in-chief take speaks of defending the constitution. It also speaks of following orders. HOWEVER, in the case mentioned above, we're talking about a disconnect between the constitution and the orders given by the CIC. If you think military people are going to blindly follow the CIC you're sorely mistaken.
Then, I suppose, you're opposed to the concept of the government limiting the supply of medallion cabs. The price (in NYC) has now soared to way over a million dollars.
Uber and Lyft, by the way, is not charging the cabbie anything until he has chosen to use the service.The cabby knows exactly how much money he is getting before he even picks up the passenger. There is nothing linking Uber to indentured servitude.
For your example to hold water the scenario would have to be along the line of:
1. Uber pays for transport for a worker from Old World to New World (in the 18th c it was England to America, now, for example it may be India to America)
2. Uber tells worker that they can work their way free by driving cab and paying for their passage to America
3. The profit made by the worker is either non-existent (hence he never pays for his passage) or it takes an exorbitant amount of time (whatever that is).
The 13th applied only to US slaves. I am against expanding it's definition to slaves in other countries whose labor is used by US companies in either a direct or indirect fashion (the use of sub-contractors).
I would, absolutely, and without equivocation, go for a law (and even amendment if necessary) to prevent the importation of goods made by slave labor. (Slave labor will have to be defined - and there will be significant debate over what is and what is not slave labor; and what percentage of a product can have a slave labor component before the law is triggered.)
(Example 1: Country X's oil workers are slaves. The oil is used to power factories in country Y. Is the product made by those factories subject to the law?)
(Example 2: Country X's oil workers are slaves. The oil is used to power factories in country X. Is the product made by those factories subject to the law?)
(Example 3: Country X's oil workers are slaves. The same (foreign) company which drills the oil owns the factories. Are the product made by those factories subject to the law? Even if the product was designed, prototyped and supported elsewhere? - think iPhones here)
Re indentured servants in the US. Their employers should go to jail if US citizens (plus fine) and if not US citizens be deported (and fined - unless with diplomatic immunity).
True. Very true. Cryptocurrencies are not anonymous and can be used to track transaction history. But it is still better (for privacy), faster, and cheaper than credit card transactions. It would take considerably more effort on the part of the gov't than aggregating credit card data which implies that they are after *you* versus simply trolling for information. (That's trolling in the trolling for fish sense - not the bbs concept of trolling)
It would bring privacy (in this respect) back to the pre-internet age. If the gov't wanted to track *you* they would get a court order and spend effort tracking *you*. The effort (dollars and hours) meant that they would have to consider *you* to be a worthy target and not simply data to be aggregated.
Not in my experience. Most of these "nuts" are quite familiar with the US Consitution. Article I Section 8; 10th Amendment, 4th Amendment.
Re the 13th A as important as that is - it's close to as irrelevant in the modern political context as the 3rd is. (You do know what that is without googling - right?)
I guarantee you the "nuts" would know.
Seriously - you do realize that the military, is made of people, most of whom care deeply about the Constitution. You must hold these men and women in utter contempt if think that they will automatically follow orders to gun down their brothers, fathers, children and cousins.
I guess you haven't heard of sheriff and police organizations who are publicly refusing to obey some of these laws. (This is a constitutional crisis that should be dealt with sooner rather than later).
or bitcoin or another cryptocurrency.
Government is there to protect your rights - not give you rights. (At least that is the Enlightenment view of rights and not the German Romantic / Anti-Enlightenment view).
In other words:
You have your thoughts. You express them. Does the government
A) protect your expression.
B) have the power to determine whether your thoughts are deemed worthy or legitimate enough to express.
If you said B then you are saying that the government "gives" you the freedom to express yourself. If you said A then it does not come from government. And ideally the government will be there to protect you from physical harm.
I completely agree with you. It's not a cultural artifact. It's a creature that died millions of years before homo sapiens existed and Mongolia didn't exist in any way shape or form. The indian subcontinent had not yet "barreled" into asia.
Ethnic cleansing? MutherF**ker? Where?
What people are saying is that the border should not be open; that emigration to the US needs to be curtailed and overseen and limits placed.
The US went from 130 million to 300 million in 60 yrs (1940-2000). At that rate of growth (and it's increasing) the US will be at 1 billion before the turn of the century - almost entirely due to immigration.
At what point do we say no more?
Who decides?
You have obscenely intricate (and ridiculous) zoning laws and many say "Oh that's needed." But we can't say no to people entering the country without being called a rightwing nutjob who promotes ethnic cleansing?
F**K you
What makes you think we don't have sensible gun legislation? What legislation would you have in place that we don't have now? How will legislation stop criminals and terrorists getting weapons? Does legislation prevent people from buying dr*gs?
It won't work because too many people think that the 2nd Amendment is a good idea; that when we formed a government we did not give up the right to self-defense. Outlawing guns won't work for the simple reason that such laws will not pass.
you could help solve the problem. Don't breed. And if you're really ambitious you know very well how to help the situation: stop eating and drinking.
The term baby boomer keeps expanding. First it applied to the birth spike from 1946-1950; then 1946-1960 and now I've seen it go up 1964!!! Checking wiki it appears that some have expanded the boomer generation to before the end of the war (1943-1964).
It's a ridiculous term as it applies to too broad a time span; you have the scenario where boomers were children of other boomers. How f*king retarded is that?
I'm sure there are millions of baby boomers (defined as up to 1964) who have children who are millenials (or much younger). A baby boomer born in 1964 who has a child at age 40 (2004) would have a child in 5th or 6th grade.
Because illiterate rednecks be rednecking. There's no reasonable argument against solar farms, and there's nothing dubious about it's ability to generate power. FFS you can cover your roof with them, half-assedly, and power your whole house from the electricity generated and stored in batteries. That town is full of asshats, plain and simple.
And the illiterate rednecks from Martha's Vineyard rejected wind farms. Let me revise your post:
"There's no reasonable argument against windfarms, and there's nothing dubious about it's ability to generate power. FFS you can cover your rooflawn with them, half-assedly, and power your whole house from the electricity generated and stored in batteries. That townMartha's Vineyard is full of asshats, plain and simple."
And of course we need Imperial Washington telling every state how to act. Laws should be made by the President or the appropriate executive branch bureaucracy; approved by congress and governors of the 50 jurisdictions should enact the Laws / Regulations made by the Executive Branch.
/sarc
Maybe, just maybe, there are other issues here. (Such as the FCC "preempting state law")
Same goes for governments (local, state and federal). Follow the money. The same rule applies as well.
Right. Get rid of the no fly rule for people in the country. If you *truly* belong on the list then the evidence should be brought forth. Either you are a dangerous individual or your name ought to be cleared and removed from the list.
The problem with universal health care is that people can rightly say that they don't want to fund for another person's foolish choices (being overweight, taking drugs, etc...) and the government can then force you to act in a certain way (force you to make the correct choice - drink less coffee, eat more vegetables, no alcohol - whatever is the position of the day).
The more power you give to the government to do "good" the more power it has to do anything and the less power you have over yourself. In creating a nanny state you create a police state. Officers look into your car to see if you're wearing seat belts, unregulated lemonade stands run by 10 year olds in front of their house are ticketed and closed.
The concept behind limited government (especially a limited Federal government) is that you have directed this government to do a few things only and everything outside of that is not within their scope of action. It is left to the individual or the state.
what! - no I had technical issues. My laptop went down while in a forced upgrade. Take a look at the next post.
I don't know of any left wing theocracies (except maybe the spiritual franciscans) but too many people take the approach "not left" therefore "right." And the more "not left" you are the more "right-wing" you are.
Ayn Rand, for example. is considered "extreme" right wing (even though she is an atheist).
(had technical issues on the other post) :)
The Federalist Papers were never abandoned. They were the arguments used in order to pass the constitution. I am a classical liberal and you make a good distinction between classical liberals and libertarians. But you are wrong re taxes and welfare.
Welfare in the 18th and 19th C was not conceived as it is today - and you know this as there wasn't a bureaucracy to transfer wealth from one set of people to another. I, for one, in case it matters to this discussion, am less concerned about income transfer to poor people than I am about the micromanagement of people's lives through the IRS, zoning, "seat -belt" type of nanny-state laws.
Re libertarians being unreasonable - I suppose you've heard people saying that we have a right to our body as far as abortion is concerned ("WAR ON WOMEN") and yet these same people saying that we don't have a right over our own body as far as drugs, or seatbelts is concerned. So a woman who can decide to terminate her fetus cannot decide whether or not to wear a seat-belt on the way to the clinic. Yup. Makes sense to me.
And, if you're rational, you would know that many people claim the mantle of being a "true" libertarian, or marxist, or muslim (or what have you) and that the positions espoused by these many "true believers" are often in conflict; - especially when you factor in that generations go by and points of concern change you will see even more divergence.
You mention contradictory views (I suppose you're referring to the philosophical positions / stances) but can there be anymore contradictory foolishness than holding the position that one has a "right to ones body" as far as abortion is concerned but at the same time have no right to ones body as far as drugs or seat-belts are concerned?