Wow, for such a short post, your logical fallacies are numerous.
You've created a straw man by adding the word "only" to my quote.
You've assumed conceit (building another straw man), when I never even said that I went to the school, I merely commented on what my beliefs are having heard others' opinions of Georgia Tech and having worked with a couple of Georgia Tech engineers.
You've assumed I'm wishing to recruit anyone -- yet another straw man.
Typical AC. I shouldn't have bothered even reading at 0.
This is something that high school seniors might want to keep in mind when selecting which university to attend.
Yeah. You should keep it in mind because Georgia Tech is respected by employers from coast to coast. One of the reasons for that is it doesn't put up with a lot of cheating bullshit.
Employers know that if you've gotten through a Georgia Tech curriculum that you didn't skate through unchallenged.
The problem is that the best way to learn how to program is actually to sit down and do it. A limited "proctored environment" doesn't cut it. So you're basically saying that they should de-emphasize the best programming teaching method to accommodate the cheaters.
I am thinking that creating 'imitation' child pornography is not any better. Somewhat like robbing a store with a fake gun.
No, because then a store is still being robbed which is illegal all by itself. Your analogy would be more accurate if you said that virtual pornography was about like making a movie about robbing a store.
I wont garner a lot of support on this as I can already here replies to the above but people who like to look at child pornography become people who want to act out on what they have been taking in.
And people who like to watch boxing eventually beat other people up. Let's outlaw boxing, any movies that depict anything illegal, etc. Maybe we should throw people in jail for impure thoughts.
Fortunately here in AZ there are a couple situations where it is legal to shoot someone w/out them directly putting you in harms way. One of them is to stop the rape of a child.
Out to the range this week-end to work on my marksmanship I guess
Oh, Jesus. I'm for gun ownership rights too. Please don't make us all look like dipshits. Shooting someone for thought crimes, no matter how bad, shows a remarkably unworkable system of ethics.
"Freedom of Speech" (in the US sense) is the right to not have the government restrict your speech, since eventually it will impinge upon your political speech, which would be bad.
It really has nothing to do with your employee/employer relationship.
It's good to see that Computer Gaming World is one of the few magazines with the ethics to avoid this kind of thing.
I bought a subscription to CGW a year or so ago, and I was immediately impressed with the maturity, intelligence, and humor of the articles - but I didn't realize how rare these qualities were in the video game review business. More recently, I gained access to a number of other video game magazines, and the contrast is amazing. Most video game magazines seem to be targetted at 12 year-olds.
If you're a 30+ year-old gamer, CGW is an excellent magazine. Actually, I don't even play that many video games these days, but the entertainment value of the magazine alone keeps me reading it even those times when the content may not be relevant to how I spend my time.
That's actually a good point. If you think about it, filesystem use is one of the few things that is more-or-less the same from platform to platform. Sure, directory demarcations change, and line endings, but that's about it. Using the standard C library on just about any system gives you easy compatibility.
Imagine if you had to really work to abstract your filesystem layer in all of your crossplatform software the way that you have to abstract your windowing system and most other stuff.
Why wouldn't a hijacker blow things up on a return trip?
I'd want to know a hell of a lot more about what that prior notice that he gave. Obviously, he didn't receive credentials sufficient to get him past security.
Yeah, some bozo security guards are going to know all about the foremost researchers in the field of cybernetics
I don't want airport security to just start taking peoples' "word for it". I want them to be on constant alert for new ways that terrorists might be trying to kill me and everyone else on board. If that means that the one guy in the world who insists on being a cyborg has trouble getting through the same system that allows 99.99999% of the rest of travelers through without problems, then so be it.
Airports have security policies, and they're in place to protect those of us who are just joe-citizens going about our normal travel. There are minor rule-exceptions where commonly needed, but apparently, there's nothing in place at that airport to allow for a person who has a good bit of embedded hardware and equipment that he doesn't want X-Rayed.
As I said, I feel a little sorry that the guy went through that. I wish that there were an easy way for people like him to be able to work his way through a security process. However, common transport services like airports can't be all things to all people and still have cost-effective security as their top priority.
Yes, I did read the article. Contacting the airport and having actual arrangements that are sufficient to get you through the airport are two different things. Obviously, what he did was insufficient.
I'm sorry, but once you start concealing things that you can't have X-rayed, with hardware inside your body, all security bets are off -- and there's no reason why airport security should take your word for what you're concealing.
What's to stop someone from having a bomb implanted, then six months later blowing it up on a plane?
Oh, he had a note form his doctor... no terrorist could ever get one of those. I feel kinda bad for the guy, but he mostly brought the situation upon himself.
At very least, he needs to make special arrangements with airport security at every point along his trip to obtain some type of special pass.
Then, there's also the imposition upon other travelers like myself. How much does it cost to have people trying to make "special arrangements", wasting security personnel's time, etc. We all pay for nonsense like that with increased ticket prices. The more I think about it, the less I feel sorry for the guy.
[ Actually, I wasn't talking about benefits of CCTV. I was talking about benefits of national ID cards. ]
I see a national ID card as being a way to lessen the rampant identity thefts happening today
That is however a mainly American problem. There is better identity security in Europe through better data protection legislation which US industry has sucessfully "lobbied" to prevent. You don't need more data, you just need to use what you have to better effect.
I definitely agree with you there. I don't mind the government's having some identifying information for me. I do object to the ease with which corporations can get, trade, and sell my information.
Thanks for the discussion, without needing to call my character into question -- like another poster to this thread whom I'll ignore.
There are lots of example of science fiction becoming science fact so to say that its bad to use a movie plot as a possible outcome could be debated for quite a while.
Yeah, but those rare hits are anecdotal in nature. In order to gain any meaning in a logical argument, you'd need to show that science fiction is a statistically reliable predictor of scientific fact. My vague feeling for the subject tells me that most science fiction is exaggerated to the point of magic and wishing, so holding up any particular piece of scifi does nothing to support an argument. I agree that it can at least give you a starting point for envisioning a scenario, but all too often on/., I read where people reference 1984, Gattaca,The Running Man, etc.; as though the one piece of legislation being discussed will bring about the scenarios in these works of fiction.
So? Preventative legislation now to stop abuses tommorrow is often a good thing.
But your argument doesn't even consider the positive benefits of such a system.
That raises the whole nature / nuture debate. If you have a predisposition to an action then you are not responsible for it and therefore the criminal justice system is based on an invalid idea (free will) and should be scrapped.
Now you're talking absolutes, when I'm talking percentage chances. Besides, if our further look into the human genome shows us that actions are dictated by our genes, then maybe our current system of justice should be scrapped to make way for our new understanding.
It's all about raising the bar, and putting my secret information encrypted with my PIN on a hard-to-compromise smart card would be a step in the right direction
So what happens if your card gets stolen and you can't prove your identity to get a new one? Or is the government expected to keep a copy of all your details online?
What happens if you lose your driver's license? It's all too easy to get a new one. If the government has a better database of information for verifying your identity, what's the problem? If anything, I see a national ID card as being a way to lessen the rampant identity thefts happening today. Plus, the ubiquity of smart card readers will make things like digital cash and micropayments easier to implement.
Now add photo and the state has a current image of almost every citizen which could then be plugged into cctv systems at political demonstrations and immediately identify people opposed to the current government. Bye Bye Freedom of Speach and hello the ability to track someone where ever they go.
This is a nonsequitur/slippery slope fallacy. The US government already has reasonably easy access to pictures of most of its citizens, but hasn't performed the abuses you described. Just because a government theoretically can do a thing doesn't mean that it does.
Fingerprints. The government doesn't have my fingerprints and I hope never will. Imagine you were at the scene of a crime, if the state already has your fingerprints they can match anyone who was there against their database, not just against known criminals.
If fingerprints were put in such a card, I'd want some safeguards put in place so that identities would be protected during police proceedings such as you mentioned. Still, the technology side isn't necessarily evil -- why is it so wrong if your fingerprint identifies you as being at the scene of a crime? An eye-witness could do that as well. Maybe we should eliminate eye-witnesses as a matter of course to protect privacy?
Genetic finger print. Think of Gattaca and the eye lash being found by the police. Immediate identification with very small probability of error. Now tie this in to :
Banking - going for a loan? Any genetic defects and they'll increase the interest rate you're paying and demand cover in case you die before its repaid.
What if that genetic defect showed guaranteed sociopathic behavior that made it a 99.9% certainty that the loan would not be repaid? Why should a bank pay someone they know is a bad risk. They evaluate income, past repayment of loans, age, and other factors. Why not go to something closer to the source?
Btw: It should always raise a red flag in any discussion when someone starts citing a movie plot as a likely outcome of real life events.
Insurance - any genetic abnormalities and then try getting insurance. Even worse if diseases such as HIV/AIDs were included in your information.
Why should I, as a health non-AIDS getter be punished for living a healthy lifestyle? Smokers often have to pay higher insurance premiums because they're a greater risk. Why is AIDS any different?
As to the genetic identification, I have high hopes that by the time that we get sophisticated to easily sequence everyone's DNA, we'll also have good methods for fixing problems in our DNA.
Finally the worst part Identity theft. Government ID card is supposed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you are who you say you are. If you have a card with your photo on it, with your fingerprints and genetic fingerprint all matching then obviously you must be the person named on it with access to all your bank accounts, property deeds etc.
But right now, things are worse. Those bozos at my bank give people access to my bank accounts if they can recite my social security number and mother's maiden name! It's all about raising the bar, and putting my secret information encrypted with my PIN on a hard-to-compromise smart card would be a step in the right direction.
This government learned nothing from the USA's abuse of the Social Security number
Well, what we learned is that a publicly available identification number shouldn't be used as a password for banks, credit card approval, etc.
We didn't learn that it's necessarily bad to have a national ID.
Personally, I don't see what's wrong with having identifying information on a fairly secure smart card.
Now, being required to carry it everywhere would be a bit more of a hassle than I'd want to endure, but then again, AFAIK the police here in the states can take you in for minor infractions if you don't have any identification on you.
All right, finally we have a good debate. Ok, you've stated how libertarians see it. Now socialists, like me, say "Without a strong government, the strong are free to hurt the weak and the weak have no way to defend themselves."
Who are these strong you're talking about? Who are these weak?
I'm sure you'd agree that the bill of rights is valuable, and having some way to enforce that is necessary.
The Constitution allows for its own enforcement. The Federal government was strong enough to stand up to Standard Oil at the turn of the century and break it up, so I don't see how expanding the Federal budget by so much over the past hundred years to continue to stand up to the strong is really necessary.
Furthermore, I suspect most people would agree that some amount of government will always be necessary. I.e. we will always need a military to protect ourselves and a police force to stop the occasional nut. Y'know, traffic lights so we can drive the streets in safety. Garbage collection so the streets aren't full of trash.
The items you mention (apart from the military) are local issues, best handled by local governments. This decentralization of government business acts both to be more responsive to localities and to reduce the amount of cash flowing through the Federal government (which is a good thing).
So in other words, there's a limit to this "small government" thing. Yes, going back to services specified by the constitution as you propose would be a smaller, but it would not be better. For example, there was no concept of an Air Force in the original constitution. No internet. No kiddie porn. Hell, blacks were considered 2/3 of a person and women couldn't vote!
Nice straw man. 1. No one said anything about the "original Constitution", just the Constitution as it now stands, which allows for womens' voting and the equality of blacks (btw, they were counted as 3/5ths a person). 2. Of course there's a limit to this "small government thing", of course we have to allow for modern things like the Air Force.
No, that's no solution. What we need is to remove the power of money in the government, not less government. Here are some ideas that make sense to me: 1)Let's pass some legitimate campaign finance reform legislation. Maybe McCain-Feingold is a start.
The soft money problem and the dramatic escalation of money needed by politicians was caused by their mucking with the system in the first place.
I have a significant problem with the government restricting political speech by controling how people spend their money on political advertisements and campaigns. I'd be happier if they removed restrictions, but mandated the strictest of reporting, so that you could know who gave what to which parties/candidates.
2)Let's open the debates up to any candidate that has gotten on the ballot in >50% of the states. Ok, so maybe they won't win, but at least we can find out what they have to say.
So, the government will now be in charge of the debating process? I think that a little government intervention in the political process goes a long way. I don't vehemently oppose your suggestion, but don't really embrace the idea, either.
The biggest problem with corporate power is that they currently have a lot of ability to influence the creation/modification of laws. Politicians have to listen to them, since that's where they get all that money they need to finance their campaigns.
Thus continues the vicious cycle. That's why I always vote for the guy that I think will reduce the size of government.
as soon as you've pulled out the wallet, you've gone into a completely different domain, which we call bribery
And if you threaten the officer, it's called verbal assault -- so by your logic, talking shouldn't be a protected freedom either. Similarly, computer code can be used to set off bombs.
So, speech, code, and money can all be illegal at some point.
Free speech is about the government's limiting an individual's expression of ideas, including criticism of that government.
If the government does something stupid, and I can't spend the million dollars I need to put a commercial on during the superbowl to tell people about it, the government is limiting my speech.
I wonder how much of/. would agree with that position?
Afterall, a lot of people here equate "code" with "speech". If code can loosely be equated to speech, why can't money?
Campaign finance reform amounts to government control of political speech (money). Government is at its worst when it tries to restrict political speech.
But when you've got "real" people give money to both sides, you just have an escalated arms race.
The only way to reduce the political dependence upon money is to reduce the power of the government. Reduce the power of the government, and you reduce the number of people (corporations) who want to control it. Reduce the people trying to conrol it, and you reduce the amount of money flowing to politicians.
If the Federal government scaled back services to those specified by the constitution, a lot of the money-chasing and corruption problems would disappear.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, for such a short post, your logical fallacies are numerous.
You've created a straw man by adding the word "only" to my quote.
You've assumed conceit (building another straw man), when I never even said that I went to the school, I merely commented on what my beliefs are having heard others' opinions of Georgia Tech and having worked with a couple of Georgia Tech engineers.
You've assumed I'm wishing to recruit anyone -- yet another straw man.
Typical AC. I shouldn't have bothered even reading at 0.
This is something that high school seniors might want to keep in mind when selecting which university to attend.
Yeah. You should keep it in mind because Georgia Tech is respected by employers from coast to coast. One of the reasons for that is it doesn't put up with a lot of cheating bullshit.
Employers know that if you've gotten through a Georgia Tech curriculum that you didn't skate through unchallenged.
The problem is that the best way to learn how to program is actually to sit down and do it. A limited "proctored environment" doesn't cut it. So you're basically saying that they should de-emphasize the best programming teaching method to accommodate the cheaters.
Hmm..
Most states' pedophilia laws allow for carnal relations between those just above and just below the age line (within a couple of years).
I am thinking that creating 'imitation' child pornography is not any better. Somewhat like robbing a store with a fake gun.
No, because then a store is still being robbed which is illegal all by itself. Your analogy would be more accurate if you said that virtual pornography was about like making a movie about robbing a store.
I wont garner a lot of support on this as I can already here replies to the above but people who like to look at child pornography become people who want to act out on what they have been taking in.
And people who like to watch boxing eventually beat other people up. Let's outlaw boxing, any movies that depict anything illegal, etc. Maybe we should throw people in jail for impure thoughts.
Fortunately here in AZ there are a couple situations where it is legal to shoot someone w/out them directly putting you in harms way. One of them is to stop the rape of a child. Out to the range this week-end to work on my marksmanship I guess
Oh, Jesus. I'm for gun ownership rights too. Please don't make us all look like dipshits. Shooting someone for thought crimes, no matter how bad, shows a remarkably unworkable system of ethics.
"Freedom of Speech" (in the US sense) is the right to not have the government restrict your speech, since eventually it will impinge upon your political speech, which would be bad.
It really has nothing to do with your employee/employer relationship.
It's good to see that Computer Gaming World is one of the few magazines with the ethics to avoid this kind of thing.
I bought a subscription to CGW a year or so ago, and I was immediately impressed with the maturity, intelligence, and humor of the articles - but I didn't realize how rare these qualities were in the video game review business. More recently, I gained access to a number of other video game magazines, and the contrast is amazing. Most video game magazines seem to be targetted at 12 year-olds.
If you're a 30+ year-old gamer, CGW is an excellent magazine. Actually, I don't even play that many video games these days, but the entertainment value of the magazine alone keeps me reading it even those times when the content may not be relevant to how I spend my time.
Yes, it's very annoying. But it's always funny seeing people complain about the quality of things that they get for free.
Maybe one day we'll all get sick of it enough to support useful solutions like micropayments for worthwhile content.
That's actually a good point. If you think about it, filesystem use is one of the few things that is more-or-less the same from platform to platform. Sure, directory demarcations change, and line endings, but that's about it. Using the standard C library on just about any system gives you easy compatibility.
Imagine if you had to really work to abstract your filesystem layer in all of your crossplatform software the way that you have to abstract your windowing system and most other stuff.
[Damn, I hate IE's text edit bugs.]
Dominic, we are delighted to learn, has subsequently joined Apple as a file system engineer.
This is the best news that I've had in a while on the Mac OSX technical front.
Allright, Dominic! Get in there and kick some ass!
?K
- Why wouldn't a hijacker blow things up on a return trip?
- I'd want to know a hell of a lot more about what that prior notice that he gave. Obviously, he didn't receive credentials sufficient to get him past security.
- Yeah, some bozo security guards are going to know all about the foremost researchers in the field of cybernetics
- I don't want airport security to just start taking peoples' "word for it". I want them to be on constant alert for new ways that terrorists might be trying to kill me and everyone else on board. If that means that the one guy in the world who insists on being a cyborg has trouble getting through the same system that allows 99.99999% of the rest of travelers through without problems, then so be it.
Airports have security policies, and they're in place to protect those of us who are just joe-citizens going about our normal travel. There are minor rule-exceptions where commonly needed, but apparently, there's nothing in place at that airport to allow for a person who has a good bit of embedded hardware and equipment that he doesn't want X-Rayed.As I said, I feel a little sorry that the guy went through that. I wish that there were an easy way for people like him to be able to work his way through a security process. However, common transport services like airports can't be all things to all people and still have cost-effective security as their top priority.
No, not everyone, just people with strangely concealed hardware that they don't want you to look at or X-Ray.
Yes, I did read the article. Contacting the airport and having actual arrangements that are sufficient to get you through the airport are two different things. Obviously, what he did was insufficient.
Did you even read my post?
I'm sorry, but once you start concealing things that you can't have X-rayed, with hardware inside your body, all security bets are off -- and there's no reason why airport security should take your word for what you're concealing.
What's to stop someone from having a bomb implanted, then six months later blowing it up on a plane?
Oh, he had a note form his doctor... no terrorist could ever get one of those. I feel kinda bad for the guy, but he mostly brought the situation upon himself.
At very least, he needs to make special arrangements with airport security at every point along his trip to obtain some type of special pass.
Then, there's also the imposition upon other travelers like myself. How much does it cost to have people trying to make "special arrangements", wasting security personnel's time, etc. We all pay for nonsense like that with increased ticket prices. The more I think about it, the less I feel sorry for the guy.
[ Actually, I wasn't talking about benefits of CCTV. I was talking about benefits of national ID cards. ]
I see a national ID card as being a way to lessen the rampant identity thefts happening today
That is however a mainly American problem. There is better identity security in Europe through better data protection legislation which US industry has sucessfully "lobbied" to prevent. You don't need more data, you just need to use what you have to better effect.
I definitely agree with you there. I don't mind the government's having some identifying information for me. I do object to the ease with which corporations can get, trade, and sell my information.
Thanks for the discussion, without needing to call my character into question -- like another poster to this thread whom I'll ignore.
There are lots of example of science fiction becoming science fact so to say that its bad to use a movie plot as a possible outcome could be debated for quite a while.
/., I read where people reference 1984, Gattaca,The Running Man, etc.; as though the one piece of legislation being discussed will bring about the scenarios in these works of fiction.
Yeah, but those rare hits are anecdotal in nature. In order to gain any meaning in a logical argument, you'd need to show that science fiction is a statistically reliable predictor of scientific fact. My vague feeling for the subject tells me that most science fiction is exaggerated to the point of magic and wishing, so holding up any particular piece of scifi does nothing to support an argument. I agree that it can at least give you a starting point for envisioning a scenario, but all too often on
So? Preventative legislation now to stop abuses tommorrow is often a good thing.
But your argument doesn't even consider the positive benefits of such a system.
That raises the whole nature / nuture debate. If you have a predisposition to an action then you are not responsible for it and therefore the criminal justice system is based on an invalid idea (free will) and should be scrapped.
Now you're talking absolutes, when I'm talking percentage chances. Besides, if our further look into the human genome shows us that actions are dictated by our genes, then maybe our current system of justice should be scrapped to make way for our new understanding.
It's all about raising the bar, and putting my secret information encrypted with my PIN on a hard-to-compromise smart card would be a step in the right direction So what happens if your card gets stolen and you can't prove your identity to get a new one? Or is the government expected to keep a copy of all your details online?
What happens if you lose your driver's license? It's all too easy to get a new one. If the government has a better database of information for verifying your identity, what's the problem? If anything, I see a national ID card as being a way to lessen the rampant identity thefts happening today. Plus, the ubiquity of smart card readers will make things like digital cash and micropayments easier to implement.
Now add photo and the state has a current image of almost every citizen which could then be plugged into cctv systems at political demonstrations and immediately identify people opposed to the current government. Bye Bye Freedom of Speach and hello the ability to track someone where ever they go.
This is a nonsequitur/slippery slope fallacy. The US government already has reasonably easy access to pictures of most of its citizens, but hasn't performed the abuses you described. Just because a government theoretically can do a thing doesn't mean that it does.
Fingerprints. The government doesn't have my fingerprints and I hope never will. Imagine you were at the scene of a crime, if the state already has your fingerprints they can match anyone who was there against their database, not just against known criminals.
If fingerprints were put in such a card, I'd want some safeguards put in place so that identities would be protected during police proceedings such as you mentioned. Still, the technology side isn't necessarily evil -- why is it so wrong if your fingerprint identifies you as being at the scene of a crime? An eye-witness could do that as well. Maybe we should eliminate eye-witnesses as a matter of course to protect privacy?
Genetic finger print. Think of Gattaca and the eye lash being found by the police. Immediate identification with very small probability of error. Now tie this in to : Banking - going for a loan? Any genetic defects and they'll increase the interest rate you're paying and demand cover in case you die before its repaid.
What if that genetic defect showed guaranteed sociopathic behavior that made it a 99.9% certainty that the loan would not be repaid? Why should a bank pay someone they know is a bad risk. They evaluate income, past repayment of loans, age, and other factors. Why not go to something closer to the source?
Btw: It should always raise a red flag in any discussion when someone starts citing a movie plot as a likely outcome of real life events.
Insurance - any genetic abnormalities and then try getting insurance. Even worse if diseases such as HIV/AIDs were included in your information.
Why should I, as a health non-AIDS getter be punished for living a healthy lifestyle? Smokers often have to pay higher insurance premiums because they're a greater risk. Why is AIDS any different?
As to the genetic identification, I have high hopes that by the time that we get sophisticated to easily sequence everyone's DNA, we'll also have good methods for fixing problems in our DNA.
Finally the worst part Identity theft. Government ID card is supposed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that you are who you say you are. If you have a card with your photo on it, with your fingerprints and genetic fingerprint all matching then obviously you must be the person named on it with access to all your bank accounts, property deeds etc.
But right now, things are worse. Those bozos at my bank give people access to my bank accounts if they can recite my social security number and mother's maiden name! It's all about raising the bar, and putting my secret information encrypted with my PIN on a hard-to-compromise smart card would be a step in the right direction.
This government learned nothing from the USA's abuse of the Social Security number
Well, what we learned is that a publicly available identification number shouldn't be used as a password for banks, credit card approval, etc.
We didn't learn that it's necessarily bad to have a national ID.
Personally, I don't see what's wrong with having identifying information on a fairly secure smart card.
Now, being required to carry it everywhere would be a bit more of a hassle than I'd want to endure, but then again, AFAIK the police here in the states can take you in for minor infractions if you don't have any identification on you.
I think that you're putting far more thought into the subplots of the Star Wars universe than George Lucas does.
Personally, I think that he has a dart board that has his various plot elements, then he just strings them haphazzardly together.
All right, finally we have a good debate. Ok, you've stated how libertarians see it. Now socialists, like me, say "Without a strong government, the strong are free to hurt the weak and the weak have no way to defend themselves."
Who are these strong you're talking about? Who are these weak?
I'm sure you'd agree that the bill of rights is valuable, and having some way to enforce that is necessary.
The Constitution allows for its own enforcement. The Federal government was strong enough to stand up to Standard Oil at the turn of the century and break it up, so I don't see how expanding the Federal budget by so much over the past hundred years to continue to stand up to the strong is really necessary.
Furthermore, I suspect most people would agree that some amount of government will always be necessary. I.e. we will always need a military to protect ourselves and a police force to stop the occasional nut. Y'know, traffic lights so we can drive the streets in safety. Garbage collection so the streets aren't full of trash.
The items you mention (apart from the military) are local issues, best handled by local governments. This decentralization of government business acts both to be more responsive to localities and to reduce the amount of cash flowing through the Federal government (which is a good thing).
So in other words, there's a limit to this "small government" thing. Yes, going back to services specified by the constitution as you propose would be a smaller, but it would not be better. For example, there was no concept of an Air Force in the original constitution. No internet. No kiddie porn. Hell, blacks were considered 2/3 of a person and women couldn't vote!
Nice straw man. 1. No one said anything about the "original Constitution", just the Constitution as it now stands, which allows for womens' voting and the equality of blacks (btw, they were counted as 3/5ths a person). 2. Of course there's a limit to this "small government thing", of course we have to allow for modern things like the Air Force.
No, that's no solution. What we need is to remove the power of money in the government, not less government.
Here are some ideas that make sense to me:
1)Let's pass some legitimate campaign finance reform legislation. Maybe McCain-Feingold is a start.
The soft money problem and the dramatic escalation of money needed by politicians was caused by their mucking with the system in the first place.
I have a significant problem with the government restricting political speech by controling how people spend their money on political advertisements and campaigns. I'd be happier if they removed restrictions, but mandated the strictest of reporting, so that you could know who gave what to which parties/candidates.
2)Let's open the debates up to any candidate that has gotten on the ballot in >50% of the states. Ok, so maybe they won't win, but at least we can find out what they have to say.
So, the government will now be in charge of the debating process? I think that a little government intervention in the political process goes a long way. I don't vehemently oppose your suggestion, but don't really embrace the idea, either.
The biggest problem with corporate power is that they currently have a lot of ability to influence the creation/modification of laws. Politicians have to listen to them, since that's where they get all that money they need to finance their campaigns.
Thus continues the vicious cycle. That's why I always vote for the guy that I think will reduce the size of government.
as soon as you've pulled out the wallet, you've gone into a completely different domain, which we call bribery
And if you threaten the officer, it's called verbal assault -- so by your logic, talking shouldn't be a protected freedom either. Similarly, computer code can be used to set off bombs.
So, speech, code, and money can all be illegal at some point.
Free speech is about the government's limiting an individual's expression of ideas, including criticism of that government.
If the government does something stupid, and I can't spend the million dollars I need to put a commercial on during the superbowl to tell people about it, the government is limiting my speech.
I wonder how much of /. would agree with that position?
Afterall, a lot of people here equate "code" with "speech". If code can loosely be equated to speech, why can't money?
Campaign finance reform amounts to government control of political speech (money). Government is at its worst when it tries to restrict political speech.
But when you've got "real" people give money to both sides, you just have an escalated arms race.
The only way to reduce the political dependence upon money is to reduce the power of the government. Reduce the power of the government, and you reduce the number of people (corporations) who want to control it. Reduce the people trying to conrol it, and you reduce the amount of money flowing to politicians.
If the Federal government scaled back services to those specified by the constitution, a lot of the money-chasing and corruption problems would disappear.