Funding for the FCC needs to be cut WAY back itself...they are tending to stick their noses where it just doesn't belong...at all.
If this ship is not heading where you want it to go, you won't correct that problem by dropping the sail. You have to adjust the rudder.
Trying to correct an out-of-control FCC by just cutting it's funding is likely to get you an FCC which is still heading the wrong way, but perhaps in a less-effective fashion.
Give everyone who has paid into social security savings bonds retroactively for all of the money they put in.
Okay, so for the $X I've already paid into Social Security, I loose my claim to any benefit I might have gained from Social Security, but I get the savings bonds instead. I follow you so far.
Use this lower interest debt to pay off the higher interest debt the government already has.
But the government doesn't get anything out of this. You've increased the National Debt by the $X of my savings bonds. But the money I paid into Social Security has, for the most part, already been spent. Unless I cash my bonds, that is, in which case the cash goes straight to me. You're funding the current retirees how again?
This should free up enough cash to deal with the people who choose to cash out of their savings bonds early.
Like I said, you haven't generated any cash, only debt.
The treasury deparment already has an automatic payroll program for savings bonds. Transition social security to this (including the employer matching).
So if I'm self-employed, I get twice as many Savings Bonds as the guy next door.
Given any american who wants it, the option of opting out (and being responsible for themselves).
So, what do you do when, a few years from now, when the retired-and-now-broke me shows up at the emergency room (or the polling station) demanding that I be taken care of because I chose to cash-out years ago? And haven't we been here before?
You need to think this through better. Try backing-up your arguments with actual numbers, and you'll discover they don't add up. The reason we have Social Security today is because there is an implicit understanding that people need help in their retirement, and society has a responsibility to provide that. If you try to change that, you're going to have an awful lot of thoroughly pissed Baby Boomers out to vote you into the ground.
The problem isn't mis-management of the Social Security monies, but the mistaken impression that Social Security is a program that only needs to be provided during good economic times with a booming workforce, and that somehow it's not important to provide the same benefits when the economy tanks and the workforce starts shrinking.
What would happen if a country other than the US did the same thing? That country would probably be a giant hole in the ground right now.
Is anyone still buying the line that Bush's "Missile Defense System" is intended to defend the U.S. against a first strike by North Korea, Iraq, or the Taliban?
People should be clear on this: Bush's "Missile Defense System" is designed to prevent a retalitory strike by countries like France, China, and Great Brtiain. Bush has always wanted the ability to strike with impunity and still maintains his right to do so even today. But the U.S. is not the only country able to deliver a "giant hole in the ground" to a foreign nation; that's a vulnerability of the Bush doctrine which GW's hot to address.
They are gonna do what they want to do and no one is going to get in their way.
We've all heard the saying: There are none so blind as those who will not see. But every rule like this has a corollary which can be used to expose it's weakness. For this one, it is:
The only thing stronger than a coalition of the willing is a coalition of the willingly misled.
Keep in mind that a ??AA "takeover" of California mostly affects California, but ??AA "takeover" of the US government affects the rest of us.
Except that a ??AA "takeover" would likely be based on Copyright law.
Copyright Law, since the inception of the Constitution, has been Federal. It's the same for all states precisely to prevent someone from getting around a ??AA "takeover" of California by hopping a flight to Nevada.
It get's worse. There is a huge push today to standardize copyright law Globally (to keep people from escaping the wrath of the ??AA by hopping a flight to Hong Kong.
But aside from the force of tradition, it's hard to defend why we need to enforce fairness amoung states, since states are not alive. Shouldn't we care more about actual people than states?
It's not just tradition here, it's history.
Back in 1776, it was the Colonies collectively declaring Independence from England rather than the U.S.A. declaring it. Back then, we had a situation rather similar(ish) to how the individual nations in Europe today are forming the European Union. The States were to be granted a wide range of liberty in establishing customs, laws, etc. Only those things which had to be done at a Federal level for structural reasons (such as a common monetary unit for commerce reasons, and full-faith-and-credit for legislative reasons, etc) were granted to the Federal Government.
Up through the Civil War, individuals thought of themselves as citizens of a State more than citizens of a country called the U.S.A.
This is what the Civil War was fought for, not slavery. It was a disagreement over whether the States should be allowed more complete control over their own affairs (on the Confederacy side, the Southern States) or whether the Federal Government should have more power (on the Union side, or the Northern States.) It's just that Slavery was one of those issues that had to go one way or the other.
It was only after the Civil War that people began to talk about themselves as citizens of The United States of America.
So it made sense prior to the Civil War to have the leader of the Federal Government elected by the States (Electorial College) because a private citizen's life was much more closely influenced by their own particular State Governor than by the President.
Back then, the Federal Government didn't have the power to tax Individual Incomes.
So, if we wanted to speculate, we could extrapolate this out in the logical directions. Would it make sense to have the head of the United Nations elected by popular vote, and to grant that organization the power to tax individuals in order to solve it's perpetual finance problems? Do we want to enforce a world where popular cultural beliefs of the majority become the law of the land for all?
History shows us that our forefathers asked these same questions, explored many answers (including some incredibly stupid, costly, and eventually discarded ones) and reached the (not quite perfect yet) answers we have today.
This is reflected in our Constitution as well: the First Amendment bans Congress from establishing a Religion, but does not ban the States from doing that. The Second bans everyone from making laws about who can keep and bear arms.
Times have changed, and our laws and culture have evolved as well. Have they kept in step? Are we headed the right direction? My opinion is no more correct than anyone elses.
Unless they don't study history and don't vote. In which case they don't have an opinion.
Would you try to make each citizen's vote equally powerful, or give extra-weight to the residents of certain areas?
There has been considerable discussion about a plan to break Iraq (or allow Iraq to break itself) into three seperate political regions (or States): Sunni Arab, Shi'ite, and Kurd. It seems to me, if we were really concerned about people, fairness, and cultural respect, this is what we should be heading for. Instead, we're concerned about Oil, political power, and maintaining control so this will never happen.
Here's an interesting thought. What if some "terrorist" develops a new "weapon", not a porta-nuke, but a cure for cancer or some other invention we think we just can't live without.
He patents it, then refuses to let anyone practice the patent at any price. Even though people are dying by the thousands because of the patent.
Would the U.S. government make a special law exempting that one patent? Would the Courts stand by as the private (intellectual) property of this individual were confiscated?
And is that how the rest of the world feels about the U.S. and it's silly attitude toward AIDS drugs?
First of all, I wasn't the person you originally replied to, so I didn't say the inventor got 'no benefit'.
Agreed. That was my mistake. It was a statement by 91degrees in this post.
The inventor loses sales and goes out of business. Who has then benefitted?
If the inventor has any use for his invention, then he has benefited. The freeloader has benefited as well. So has society in general. And if we presume for whatever reason, that the inventor has not benefited enough to (for example, repay investors, cover his expenses, meet his profit expectations, etc) then all of them (inventor, freeloader and society) will have benefited for the last time, at least from that inventor. Clearly not an optimal solution.
Patent law ensures (or attempts to ensure) that there are no freeloaders, meaning that the costs of the invention (investors, expenses, profit, etc.) are paid by society if society wishes to gain the benefit. It's a fairly good free-market solution, allowing the inventor to set his price based on how much society is willing to pay. If society isn't willing to pay that much, he has to lower his prices. If the invention was lame, maybe he won't be able to get anyone to pay what he wants. But it does have a flaw: it creates a market anomoly; a monopoly.
The grant of this monopoly means that society does not have the option of re-inventing the invention again, at any cost. Society can be held hostage by an inventor who chooses to not allow the benefits of the invention at all. Thankfully, only for 30(?) years.
If we lose control of the language in this debate, we will lose the war.
For the longest time it has irritated me that "the other side" doesn't get it when talking about file sharing and peer-to-peer. There's always a sense that the only thing these technologies are good for is infringing copyright.
Now I'm beginning to see our side talk about it that way.
This will not do. Leaving aside any discussion about whether sharing copyrighted files (against the will of the copyright owner) should or should not be illegal, we have to face the fact that it is.
But we must also never forget that sharing files (even copyrighted ones) within the will of the copyright owner is legal. If we forget that, then we surely will lose this war.
The effect of making it illegal, or even more illegal to infringe using p2p will simply clear the way for a culture where those copyrighted works which allow sharing replace those works which don't; a victory for those who create.
The effect of making it illegal, or even more illegal to use p2p at all hands the victory to those who own other peoples creations and exploit them for profit. RIAA, MPAA and crew.
I just can't understand why young people today are willing to forgo their only chance to create a culture for themselves in exchange for a chance to buy (or obtain illegally) a piece of somebody else's culture.
Great way to start out a meaningful discussion, no?
Without the financial incentive to innovate, [no] true innovation will take place.
I'll grant this for the sake of the argument. But even if that "financial incentive" is comprised primarily of Patent royalties, there are additional benefits you fail to acknowledge.
...relegating innovation into a device-by-device process would fundamentally defeat the goals of our commercial system.
I don't follow you here. Can you explain what you mean by "device-by-device process"? And you'll need additional background to explain what you see as "our commercial system".
I'm assuming...
Okay, we can dispense with the rest of your post, since you're off in La-La land. No one I respect is advocating the elimination of the Patent system, at least not without replacing it with some system for maintaining the necessary incentives for inventors. The Story was about patent system reform and this thread was about correcting the statement 91degrees made that, without protection for easily copyable inventions, developing an invention provides the inventor with no benefit.
Even if you were completely right and I was completely wrong, boorish attacks and putting words into my mouth do not help you to make your argument, do not add to the usefulness of this community, and do not bolster your personal reputation. In short, they are neither wanted nor needed.
Inventor expects to gain technological and financial advantage from it.
Freeloaders didn't spend the money.
Freeloaders get the same technological advantage by copying.
Freeloader's cost/benefit equation is not burdened by the costs, whereas the inventor's cost/benefit equation is.
Patents are intended to allow the inventor's financial advantage to balance the equation again.
Yes, agreed to all of these. But that's not what you said. You said:
It's cost me a lot of money, and [gives] me no benefit.
This statement is not supported by the above points. It's not a question of receiving no benefit, it's a question of receiving enough benefit.
The current patent system leaves the question of "how much is enough?" entirely in the hands of the patent holder. That would be fine if it were only the patent holder involved. But the patent holder is deriving this additional "financial advantage" from the society which grants him the patent. So I'd argue it's only fair to allow the Public some say in how much is enough.
These are difficult issues, with valid opinions on all sides. But flawed reasoning helps no one.
Why would I bother with the research in the first place? It's cost me a lot of money, and [gives] me no benefit.
You're fallacy lies here. If you invest in developing something easily copyable, it may be true that it costs you a lot of money, but it is false that it gives you no benefit. It does provide you benefit; the benefit of whatever you were developing. (In your example, it was a better wing).
What I think you meant to say was that someone else could gain the same benefit without it costing them the same amount of money, since they could just copy the development you have done.
So, at least on the surface, you appear to be complaining about the fact that freeloaders don't have to pay as much as you did. It affects your ability to benefit beyond your development, that is, to benefit at the expense of others. And it allows others to benefit without compensating you. But in the final analysis, it's all about selfishness.
It might be a rightful selfishness, but it's selfishness none the less.
So by your logic, since the 1st amendment doesn't explicitly mention the Internet, then 1st amendment rights shouldn't apply to web sites?
No, quite to the contrary. Free Speech on the Internet is a subset of Free Speech in general. Therefore as long as we agree that Free Speech is necessary, then Free Speech on the Internet should be included.
And following the same line of reasoning, if we agree that the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed, and agree that a handgun fits within the definition of "arms", then handguns are covered within the Second Amendment.
But then it follows that the right to keep and bear other forms of arms should not be infringed, either. That would include rifles, assault weapons, chemical weapons, and nukes. And, if we're using that definition of arms, it would include all the new forms of arms our ingenious little minds are likely to create in the future.
My point was not to say that, because the Second Amendment does not explicitly mention a certain type of arms by name that the right to keep and bear it may be infringed. My point was to try to get people out of the mindset that, because firearms were the latest-and-greatest thing at the time the Second was signed, or because handguns are still popular today, the Second must always be viewed in terms of how it relates to firearms, handguns, and the like.
I don't think our society is prepared today to deal with the prospect of private individuals owning nukes. Even if we exclude felons from that set (for life). But I think our society is weaker because of it. I'd much rather live in a society that has figured out how to exist even if felons own handguns, and anyone can keep and bear nukes.
Because, we know how many handgun crimes are committed by felons who can't legally own them.
I don't object to laws preventing felons from owning handguns, but I think we need to recognise such laws for what the are; a temporary patch to fix a broken system. We need to view such laws as indicative of latent vulnerabilities in our society, and work toward fixing them for good.
...it would be very easy for someone to get around the SS agents and shoot the President because there would be so many people "spontaneously" crowding around Bush.
But is the answer to eliminate the technology which enables the crime, or to eliminate the crime?
If there are more than a handful of deranged people walking around today who consider such an action as any sort of answer, then perhaps we need to start asking why people are so motivated? If it's only a handful, I'm sure Bush's SS team is up to the job.
Flash mobbing presents a danger to what little is left of freedom of association.
Isn't that just a little bit like saying "Your Right to <whatever> shall not be infringed, unless you attempt to exercise it."
Bush didn't mention that because he had no intention of it at the time. He ran on domestic policies. After 9/11 he looked around and saw that the swamp needed to be drained, hence the war and nation building in Iraq.
In Washington, these days, I believe that's what they call a flip-flop.
Bush has always said that the war against the terrorists (and their allies and sponsors) was going to last a very long time, possibliy decades.
Whoa, Cowboy! We weren't talking about the so-called "war against terrorism", we were talking about the invasion of Iraq.
Would you mind clarifying that? Are you
simply engaging in "dissent"...or are you aiding terrorists
like Al Qaeda or Hamas by giving them or their front groups
cash, weapons, intelligence or other
support?
Ah. Things are always so simple when you don't understand.
You and I would likely agree on whether Al Qaeda or Hamas are
terrorists. We would have a more difficult time reaching
agreement about "...their front groups..." because we don't
have a clear definition of who their front groups are and how
closely they are connected to the organizations we consider
to be terrorist.
When we got down to "...terrorists like Al Qaeda or
Hamas..." we'd be well into the murk. Which side would you
call the "terrorist" one in Northern Ireland? In Jakarta?
Somalia? Chechtnya? What about East L.A?
And then if I started askng these people (erm, excuse me,
I was supposed to call them "terrorists") if they consider
themselves to be "terrorists", I'd get a denial across the
board.
Maybe we need to be asking a different question, like maybe
"Do you consider yourself to be an extremist?"
But the statement I made and the question you asked, revolved
not around whether you or I consider some person or group to
be a terrorist, but whether the Bush Administration
considers me a terrorist. This is not a simple
question, because Bush has never laid out just exactly what
a "terrorist" is.
And he isn't asking for feedback now.
which was my point exactly.
It isn't a hard distinction to make. If you can't make it,
or understand it, you are a fool.
Only a fool would claim to be a wise man, the wise man knows
he is a fool.
[T]he Federal Government (by no means) and the State Goverments should not prescribe which beliefs the people should hold to.
Oh no. Now you've brought that into it.
Actually, the Constitution only specifies that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." emphasis added From this, we get the longstanding tradition of a seperation of Church and State, but technically the States themselves are not prohibited by the Federal Constitution from doing just that.
Of course this is where things get a bit sticky, precisely because the Feds started attaching Federal laws and benefits to the originally Religious institution of Marriage.
You see, as the system was originally designed, Full Faith and Credit guaranteed that if I got married in Nevada I'd still be married in Mississippi. If marriage only has a religious context, then the people of Mississippi don't have to worry about their tax dollars going to someone who would not have been able to get married at any church in Mississippi.
The ironic part is that Bush understood this before he took office, stating that questions of who should get married should be left to the States. It was only after he got into office that (apparently) some advisor told him he could snag extra Religious Right votes by trying to (excuse the pun) "make a Federal Case out of it" that he flip-flopped to the other extreme.
OK, so let's follow the logic to an equally absurd extreme in the other direction. Should a guy be allowed to marry his sister if he gets a vasectomy? Once the genetic dangers of incest have been eliminated, why not let them get married, and adopt kids if they want to?
We're likely to trip-up on the word "marriage" here. As it's used today in the context of this discussion, "marriage" implies a union recognised by the Federal Government for tax and benefit purposes. (Gay's can already get "married" where "married" implies a religiously sanctioned union which is not recognized by Federal Law)
The Federal Government is within it's right (through Law and, in my opinion, in a moral sense) to craft laws and legislation to promote causes where there is a compelling reason to do so.
I believe family values constitutes such a compelling reason. I believe raising children represents another. I believe these two are seperable, meaning I believe there is a compelling reason to promote family values even when no connection to raising children is present, and I believe there is a compelling reason to promote the raising of children even when no connection to a family is present.
So if a pair or group of people shows effectiveness in raising children, their success should be rewarded regardless of their individual races, religions, sexes or biological relationship to one another. As such, I support the work of orphanages, foster homes, grandparents raising their grandchildren, step parents, single parents, people raising a child resulting from an affair with a third party, and people raising adopted children (including Gays.) So, to answer your question, I would approve the Federal Government crafting laws and legislation to assist those engaged in the task of raising a family.
Your question didn't ask it, but I would include in that set a brother/sister pair, regardless of the fertitity of either of the two.
Similarly, I might support Federal Legislation supporting what s been called "family values"; that is, promotion of close bonds between people working together in long-term relationships to offer support, guidance, etc. I'd have to see the details. But in this vein, such a "family unit" wouldn't have to include (or even be intended to eventually include) children of any type. Such a family could consist of two married people, or them and their children, or include adopted children. It would apply even if one parent of the children died (or left through divorce) but only if there were dependent children in the mix. You don't get the benefit if you live alone. And, again, under this definition, a family which loses both parents is still a family, even if there are only two (but at least two) children making up the remaining family unit; even if one is male and the other female, and whether or not the male has had a vasectomy. I don't believe you could exclude polygamy from this benefit. Not unless
the Federal Government could show a compelling reason to do so.
Of course, I've been avoiding the term "marriage".
In my opinion, "marriage" is a strictly religious function, and as such, the Federal Government is forbidded from either sanctioning it or outlawing it.
This would mean Gays would be more than welcome to get married, but they'd have to find a religious institution to sanctify the marriage, and they'd gain no Federal benefits simply by having been "blessed".
On the other hand, as soon as they declared themselves "domestic partners", they'd qualify for all the same "family values" benefits "married" people (under today's definition) are granted. And if they chose to adopt a child (or if one of them produced offspring with the biological involvement of some third party) they would qualify for the same "raising children" benefiits "married" people (under today's definition) are granted.
So, to answer your question Should a guy be allowed to marry his sister if he gets a
Follow this chain of thought out and you will realize that he appears to believe that unless you can have kids you should not be married.
Perhaps we should take this a step further and deny "marriage" to:
Anyone who hasn't actually had children. (Unless you do have kids you should not be married.)
Families where the children are not biologically related to both parents (step-parents taxed at the single rate, adopted children don't count, etc.)
Couples where the children are older than 18 and can no longer be claimed as dependents (since these people are no longer performing the act of "raising their children".)
Of course, if we do that, then we have to start seeing the lack of universal health care for children for what it really is; an assault on the institution of marriage, a "family" tax penalty, and something no upstanding conservative Republican worth his salt would ever stand for.
Both Wilson and FDR both ran as peace candidates right
before getting us into world wars. 9/11 was the biggest
attack on our territory since Pearl Harbor.
The form of your argument is wrong, and won't hold water
here.
Using this logic, some future President could watch as
Fidel Castro spit on a U.S. consolate sidewalk and invade
Cuba, arguing that it was "the biggest
attack on our territory since 9/11".
At the very least, he's moving the precedents the wrong
way.
Of course we're
going to have radical shifts in policy after such an event.
One of those radical shifts is how we're approaching nation
building.
Can someone explain to me exactly what Bush's approach to
nation building is?
And if we're going to radically shift our poliicies
toward nation building, I was kinda hoping I might
have a say in it, instead of being practically branded a
terrorist myself for dissent, under Bush's "you're either
with us or against us" policies.
First of all Bush was up front about how long
it would take.
When? We were discussing his project proposals before
the 2000 election. There was no mention of invading Iraq
back then.
And no, 9/11 didn't change anything with respect to Iraq, at
least not in the direction favoring an invasion, because
there was no connection between the events of 9/11 and Iraq,
no matter how many times Bush repeats it.
Secondly, the only reason people are clammoring about the
amount of American lives lost is because the media has to
let everyone know everytime someone gets hurt over there.
The casualty numbers are still FAR less than the number of
people that would have died had saddam been left there.
Are we discussing "American lives" as you first
stated, or are we discussing "...the number of
people that would have died..." as you stated in the
second?
If we're talking about the number of "American lives"
which can reasonably assumed to be under threat from a Saddam
Hussein (who, in fact, did not have any WMD
capability) and which could not have been safeguarded
by any measure short of invasion, then you'll need to explain
your reasoning a bit better that just asserting to convince
me.
Just because Iraq has not become a full-fledged democracy yet does not mean that it won't...
I don't recall Bush mention the part about spending my tax dollars on Iraqi Nation Building back when he was asking for my vote back in 2000.
If he really had such an overwhelming desire to help out people in other countries, why did he pick Iraq when there were so many other prime targets where the money would have been more effective, and killed less Americans in the process?
And I don't mind things taking time, but if that's the case, why wasn't Bush up-front about how much time it was going to take in the first place?
Since 1950 it has been assumed that declaring war is red tape and can be bypassed.
All laws are just red tape which can be bypassed. We attribute character to those who choose to not just bypass them.
Back in the 80's, some news weekly ran a story about drug dealers in a major city, and how the size of their "businesses" (measured by gross volume) would make some of them qualified to run medium-to-large businesses. That statement stuck with me, because it completely missed the point. Sure it's easier to build a multi-million dollar business if you can sell an addicting product, never pay any taxes, never apply for a permit, and gun-down your competition to maintain your territorries. The real pros are the ones that can stay within the law and still turn a profit.
Substitute "cook the books" and you see a lot of what we saw from Enron, WorldCom, and others more recently.
In my book, you don't get to claim you won the game unless you played by the rules. If you cheated, it doesn't matter how many points you scored.
By this measure, none of Bush's fiscal accomplishments (were there any?) amount to anything, because they were all claimed at the expense of creating a huge budget defecit.
Nothing he cites as a foreign-policy success earns a point, because he had to use war powers to do it.
And he doesn't even get the benefit of the can't-prove-a-negative think of "nothing bad has happened in the U.S., except for that little 9/11 thing" because of the way he's had to stomp on civil liberties to make that happen.
Give me someone who's ready to play by the rules over someone who can only win by cheating, please.
Slashdot Mirror
If this ship is not heading where you want it to go, you won't correct that problem by dropping the sail. You have to adjust the rudder.
Trying to correct an out-of-control FCC by just cutting it's funding is likely to get you an FCC which is still heading the wrong way, but perhaps in a less-effective fashion.
Okay, so for the $X I've already paid into Social Security, I loose my claim to any benefit I might have gained from Social Security, but I get the savings bonds instead. I follow you so far.
But the government doesn't get anything out of this. You've increased the National Debt by the $X of my savings bonds. But the money I paid into Social Security has, for the most part, already been spent. Unless I cash my bonds, that is, in which case the cash goes straight to me. You're funding the current retirees how again?
Like I said, you haven't generated any cash, only debt.
So if I'm self-employed, I get twice as many Savings Bonds as the guy next door.
So, what do you do when, a few years from now, when the retired-and-now-broke me shows up at the emergency room (or the polling station) demanding that I be taken care of because I chose to cash-out years ago? And haven't we been here before?
You need to think this through better. Try backing-up your arguments with actual numbers, and you'll discover they don't add up. The reason we have Social Security today is because there is an implicit understanding that people need help in their retirement, and society has a responsibility to provide that. If you try to change that, you're going to have an awful lot of thoroughly pissed Baby Boomers out to vote you into the ground.
The problem isn't mis-management of the Social Security monies, but the mistaken impression that Social Security is a program that only needs to be provided during good economic times with a booming workforce, and that somehow it's not important to provide the same benefits when the economy tanks and the workforce starts shrinking.
Is anyone still buying the line that Bush's "Missile Defense System" is intended to defend the U.S. against a first strike by North Korea, Iraq, or the Taliban?
People should be clear on this: Bush's "Missile Defense System" is designed to prevent a retalitory strike by countries like France, China, and Great Brtiain. Bush has always wanted the ability to strike with impunity and still maintains his right to do so even today. But the U.S. is not the only country able to deliver a "giant hole in the ground" to a foreign nation; that's a vulnerability of the Bush doctrine which GW's hot to address.
We've all heard the saying: There are none so blind as those who will not see. But every rule like this has a corollary which can be used to expose it's weakness. For this one, it is:
The only thing stronger than a coalition of the willing is a coalition of the willingly misled.
Except that a ??AA "takeover" would likely be based on Copyright law.
Copyright Law, since the inception of the Constitution, has been Federal. It's the same for all states precisely to prevent someone from getting around a ??AA "takeover" of California by hopping a flight to Nevada.
It get's worse. There is a huge push today to standardize copyright law Globally (to keep people from escaping the wrath of the ??AA by hopping a flight to Hong Kong.
Not advocating, just educating.
It's not just tradition here, it's history.
Back in 1776, it was the Colonies collectively declaring Independence from England rather than the U.S.A. declaring it. Back then, we had a situation rather similar(ish) to how the individual nations in Europe today are forming the European Union. The States were to be granted a wide range of liberty in establishing customs, laws, etc. Only those things which had to be done at a Federal level for structural reasons (such as a common monetary unit for commerce reasons, and full-faith-and-credit for legislative reasons, etc) were granted to the Federal Government.
Up through the Civil War, individuals thought of themselves as citizens of a State more than citizens of a country called the U.S.A.
This is what the Civil War was fought for, not slavery. It was a disagreement over whether the States should be allowed more complete control over their own affairs (on the Confederacy side, the Southern States) or whether the Federal Government should have more power (on the Union side, or the Northern States.) It's just that Slavery was one of those issues that had to go one way or the other.
It was only after the Civil War that people began to talk about themselves as citizens of The United States of America.
So it made sense prior to the Civil War to have the leader of the Federal Government elected by the States (Electorial College) because a private citizen's life was much more closely influenced by their own particular State Governor than by the President.
Back then, the Federal Government didn't have the power to tax Individual Incomes.
So, if we wanted to speculate, we could extrapolate this out in the logical directions. Would it make sense to have the head of the United Nations elected by popular vote, and to grant that organization the power to tax individuals in order to solve it's perpetual finance problems? Do we want to enforce a world where popular cultural beliefs of the majority become the law of the land for all?
History shows us that our forefathers asked these same questions, explored many answers (including some incredibly stupid, costly, and eventually discarded ones) and reached the (not quite perfect yet) answers we have today.
This is reflected in our Constitution as well: the First Amendment bans Congress from establishing a Religion, but does not ban the States from doing that. The Second bans everyone from making laws about who can keep and bear arms.
Times have changed, and our laws and culture have evolved as well. Have they kept in step? Are we headed the right direction? My opinion is no more correct than anyone elses.
Unless they don't study history and don't vote. In which case they don't have an opinion.
There has been considerable discussion about a plan to break Iraq (or allow Iraq to break itself) into three seperate political regions (or States): Sunni Arab, Shi'ite, and Kurd. It seems to me, if we were really concerned about people, fairness, and cultural respect, this is what we should be heading for. Instead, we're concerned about Oil, political power, and maintaining control so this will never happen.
He patents it, then refuses to let anyone practice the patent at any price. Even though people are dying by the thousands because of the patent.
Would the U.S. government make a special law exempting that one patent? Would the Courts stand by as the private (intellectual) property of this individual were confiscated?
And is that how the rest of the world feels about the U.S. and it's silly attitude toward AIDS drugs?
Agreed. That was my mistake. It was a statement by 91degrees in this post.
If the inventor has any use for his invention, then he has benefited. The freeloader has benefited as well. So has society in general. And if we presume for whatever reason, that the inventor has not benefited enough to (for example, repay investors, cover his expenses, meet his profit expectations, etc) then all of them (inventor, freeloader and society) will have benefited for the last time, at least from that inventor. Clearly not an optimal solution.
Patent law ensures (or attempts to ensure) that there are no freeloaders, meaning that the costs of the invention (investors, expenses, profit, etc.) are paid by society if society wishes to gain the benefit. It's a fairly good free-market solution, allowing the inventor to set his price based on how much society is willing to pay. If society isn't willing to pay that much, he has to lower his prices. If the invention was lame, maybe he won't be able to get anyone to pay what he wants. But it does have a flaw: it creates a market anomoly; a monopoly.
The grant of this monopoly means that society does not have the option of re-inventing the invention again, at any cost. Society can be held hostage by an inventor who chooses to not allow the benefits of the invention at all. Thankfully, only for 30(?) years.
For the longest time it has irritated me that "the other side" doesn't get it when talking about file sharing and peer-to-peer. There's always a sense that the only thing these technologies are good for is infringing copyright.
Now I'm beginning to see our side talk about it that way.
This will not do. Leaving aside any discussion about whether sharing copyrighted files (against the will of the copyright owner) should or should not be illegal, we have to face the fact that it is.
But we must also never forget that sharing files (even copyrighted ones) within the will of the copyright owner is legal. If we forget that, then we surely will lose this war.
The effect of making it illegal, or even more illegal to infringe using p2p will simply clear the way for a culture where those copyrighted works which allow sharing replace those works which don't; a victory for those who create.
The effect of making it illegal, or even more illegal to use p2p at all hands the victory to those who own other peoples creations and exploit them for profit. RIAA, MPAA and crew.
I just can't understand why young people today are willing to forgo their only chance to create a culture for themselves in exchange for a chance to buy (or obtain illegally) a piece of somebody else's culture.
Come on, now. Boy George just wasn't that good.
Great way to start out a meaningful discussion, no?
I'll grant this for the sake of the argument. But even if that "financial incentive" is comprised primarily of Patent royalties, there are additional benefits you fail to acknowledge.
I don't follow you here. Can you explain what you mean by "device-by-device process"? And you'll need additional background to explain what you see as "our commercial system".
Okay, we can dispense with the rest of your post, since you're off in La-La land. No one I respect is advocating the elimination of the Patent system, at least not without replacing it with some system for maintaining the necessary incentives for inventors. The Story was about patent system reform and this thread was about correcting the statement 91degrees made that, without protection for easily copyable inventions, developing an invention provides the inventor with no benefit.
Even if you were completely right and I was completely wrong, boorish attacks and putting words into my mouth do not help you to make your argument, do not add to the usefulness of this community, and do not bolster your personal reputation. In short, they are neither wanted nor needed.
Just go away.
Yes, agreed to all of these. But that's not what you said. You said:
This statement is not supported by the above points. It's not a question of receiving no benefit, it's a question of receiving enough benefit.
The current patent system leaves the question of "how much is enough?" entirely in the hands of the patent holder. That would be fine if it were only the patent holder involved. But the patent holder is deriving this additional "financial advantage" from the society which grants him the patent. So I'd argue it's only fair to allow the Public some say in how much is enough.
These are difficult issues, with valid opinions on all sides. But flawed reasoning helps no one.
You're fallacy lies here. If you invest in developing something easily copyable, it may be true that it costs you a lot of money, but it is false that it gives you no benefit. It does provide you benefit; the benefit of whatever you were developing. (In your example, it was a better wing).
What I think you meant to say was that someone else could gain the same benefit without it costing them the same amount of money, since they could just copy the development you have done.
So, at least on the surface, you appear to be complaining about the fact that freeloaders don't have to pay as much as you did. It affects your ability to benefit beyond your development, that is, to benefit at the expense of others. And it allows others to benefit without compensating you. But in the final analysis, it's all about selfishness.
It might be a rightful selfishness, but it's selfishness none the less.
No, quite to the contrary. Free Speech on the Internet is a subset of Free Speech in general. Therefore as long as we agree that Free Speech is necessary, then Free Speech on the Internet should be included.
And following the same line of reasoning, if we agree that the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed, and agree that a handgun fits within the definition of "arms", then handguns are covered within the Second Amendment.
But then it follows that the right to keep and bear other forms of arms should not be infringed, either. That would include rifles, assault weapons, chemical weapons, and nukes. And, if we're using that definition of arms, it would include all the new forms of arms our ingenious little minds are likely to create in the future.
My point was not to say that, because the Second Amendment does not explicitly mention a certain type of arms by name that the right to keep and bear it may be infringed. My point was to try to get people out of the mindset that, because firearms were the latest-and-greatest thing at the time the Second was signed, or because handguns are still popular today, the Second must always be viewed in terms of how it relates to firearms, handguns, and the like.
I don't think our society is prepared today to deal with the prospect of private individuals owning nukes. Even if we exclude felons from that set (for life). But I think our society is weaker because of it. I'd much rather live in a society that has figured out how to exist even if felons own handguns, and anyone can keep and bear nukes.
Because, we know how many handgun crimes are committed by felons who can't legally own them.
I don't object to laws preventing felons from owning handguns, but I think we need to recognise such laws for what the are; a temporary patch to fix a broken system. We need to view such laws as indicative of latent vulnerabilities in our society, and work toward fixing them for good.
Where does the 2nd say anything about handguns?
But is the answer to eliminate the technology which enables the crime, or to eliminate the crime?
If there are more than a handful of deranged people walking around today who consider such an action as any sort of answer, then perhaps we need to start asking why people are so motivated? If it's only a handful, I'm sure Bush's SS team is up to the job.
Isn't that just a little bit like saying "Your Right to <whatever> shall not be infringed, unless you attempt to exercise it."
In Washington, these days, I believe that's what they call a flip-flop.
Whoa, Cowboy! We weren't talking about the so-called "war against terrorism", we were talking about the invasion of Iraq.
I beg your pardon?
Ah. Things are always so simple when you don't understand.
You and I would likely agree on whether Al Qaeda or Hamas are terrorists. We would have a more difficult time reaching agreement about "...their front groups..." because we don't have a clear definition of who their front groups are and how closely they are connected to the organizations we consider to be terrorist.
When we got down to "...terrorists like Al Qaeda or Hamas..." we'd be well into the murk. Which side would you call the "terrorist" one in Northern Ireland? In Jakarta? Somalia? Chechtnya? What about East L.A?
And then if I started askng these people (erm, excuse me, I was supposed to call them "terrorists") if they consider themselves to be "terrorists", I'd get a denial across the board.
Maybe we need to be asking a different question, like maybe "Do you consider yourself to be an extremist?"
But the statement I made and the question you asked, revolved not around whether you or I consider some person or group to be a terrorist, but whether the Bush Administration considers me a terrorist. This is not a simple question, because Bush has never laid out just exactly what a "terrorist" is.
And he isn't asking for feedback now.
which was my point exactly.
Only a fool would claim to be a wise man, the wise man knows he is a fool.
Oh no. Now you've brought that into it.
Actually, the Constitution only specifies that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." emphasis added From this, we get the longstanding tradition of a seperation of Church and State, but technically the States themselves are not prohibited by the Federal Constitution from doing just that.
Of course this is where things get a bit sticky, precisely because the Feds started attaching Federal laws and benefits to the originally Religious institution of Marriage.
You see, as the system was originally designed, Full Faith and Credit guaranteed that if I got married in Nevada I'd still be married in Mississippi. If marriage only has a religious context, then the people of Mississippi don't have to worry about their tax dollars going to someone who would not have been able to get married at any church in Mississippi.
The ironic part is that Bush understood this before he took office, stating that questions of who should get married should be left to the States. It was only after he got into office that (apparently) some advisor told him he could snag extra Religious Right votes by trying to (excuse the pun) "make a Federal Case out of it" that he flip-flopped to the other extreme.
Christ, on the other hand, was not a Christian, but rather a Jew.
Think about it.
We're likely to trip-up on the word "marriage" here. As it's used today in the context of this discussion, "marriage" implies a union recognised by the Federal Government for tax and benefit purposes. (Gay's can already get "married" where "married" implies a religiously sanctioned union which is not recognized by Federal Law)
The Federal Government is within it's right (through Law and, in my opinion, in a moral sense) to craft laws and legislation to promote causes where there is a compelling reason to do so.
I believe family values constitutes such a compelling reason. I believe raising children represents another. I believe these two are seperable, meaning I believe there is a compelling reason to promote family values even when no connection to raising children is present, and I believe there is a compelling reason to promote the raising of children even when no connection to a family is present.
So if a pair or group of people shows effectiveness in raising children, their success should be rewarded regardless of their individual races, religions, sexes or biological relationship to one another. As such, I support the work of orphanages, foster homes, grandparents raising their grandchildren, step parents, single parents, people raising a child resulting from an affair with a third party, and people raising adopted children (including Gays.) So, to answer your question, I would approve the Federal Government crafting laws and legislation to assist those engaged in the task of raising a family.
Your question didn't ask it, but I would include in that set a brother/sister pair, regardless of the fertitity of either of the two.
Similarly, I might support Federal Legislation supporting what s been called "family values"; that is, promotion of close bonds between people working together in long-term relationships to offer support, guidance, etc. I'd have to see the details. But in this vein, such a "family unit" wouldn't have to include (or even be intended to eventually include) children of any type. Such a family could consist of two married people, or them and their children, or include adopted children. It would apply even if one parent of the children died (or left through divorce) but only if there were dependent children in the mix. You don't get the benefit if you live alone. And, again, under this definition, a family which loses both parents is still a family, even if there are only two (but at least two) children making up the remaining family unit; even if one is male and the other female, and whether or not the male has had a vasectomy. I don't believe you could exclude polygamy from this benefit. Not unless the Federal Government could show a compelling reason to do so.
Of course, I've been avoiding the term "marriage".
In my opinion, "marriage" is a strictly religious function, and as such, the Federal Government is forbidded from either sanctioning it or outlawing it.
This would mean Gays would be more than welcome to get married, but they'd have to find a religious institution to sanctify the marriage, and they'd gain no Federal benefits simply by having been "blessed".
On the other hand, as soon as they declared themselves "domestic partners", they'd qualify for all the same "family values" benefits "married" people (under today's definition) are granted. And if they chose to adopt a child (or if one of them produced offspring with the biological involvement of some third party) they would qualify for the same "raising children" benefiits "married" people (under today's definition) are granted.
So, to answer your question Should a guy be allowed to marry his sister if he gets a
Perhaps we should take this a step further and deny "marriage" to:
Of course, if we do that, then we have to start seeing the lack of universal health care for children for what it really is; an assault on the institution of marriage, a "family" tax penalty, and something no upstanding conservative Republican worth his salt would ever stand for.
The form of your argument is wrong, and won't hold water here.
Using this logic, some future President could watch as Fidel Castro spit on a U.S. consolate sidewalk and invade Cuba, arguing that it was "the biggest attack on our territory since 9/11".
At the very least, he's moving the precedents the wrong way.
Can someone explain to me exactly what Bush's approach to nation building is?
And if we're going to radically shift our poliicies toward nation building, I was kinda hoping I might have a say in it, instead of being practically branded a terrorist myself for dissent, under Bush's "you're either with us or against us" policies.
When? We were discussing his project proposals before the 2000 election. There was no mention of invading Iraq back then.
And no, 9/11 didn't change anything with respect to Iraq, at least not in the direction favoring an invasion, because there was no connection between the events of 9/11 and Iraq, no matter how many times Bush repeats it.
Are we discussing "American lives" as you first stated, or are we discussing "...the number of people that would have died..." as you stated in the second?
If we're talking about the number of "American lives" which can reasonably assumed to be under threat from a Saddam Hussein (who, in fact, did not have any WMD capability) and which could not have been safeguarded by any measure short of invasion, then you'll need to explain your reasoning a bit better that just asserting to convince me.
I don't recall Bush mention the part about spending my tax dollars on Iraqi Nation Building back when he was asking for my vote back in 2000.
If he really had such an overwhelming desire to help out people in other countries, why did he pick Iraq when there were so many other prime targets where the money would have been more effective, and killed less Americans in the process?
And I don't mind things taking time, but if that's the case, why wasn't Bush up-front about how much time it was going to take in the first place?
I have no patience for people who lie to me.
All laws are just red tape which can be bypassed. We attribute character to those who choose to not just bypass them.
Back in the 80's, some news weekly ran a story about drug dealers in a major city, and how the size of their "businesses" (measured by gross volume) would make some of them qualified to run medium-to-large businesses. That statement stuck with me, because it completely missed the point. Sure it's easier to build a multi-million dollar business if you can sell an addicting product, never pay any taxes, never apply for a permit, and gun-down your competition to maintain your territorries. The real pros are the ones that can stay within the law and still turn a profit.
Substitute "cook the books" and you see a lot of what we saw from Enron, WorldCom, and others more recently.
In my book, you don't get to claim you won the game unless you played by the rules. If you cheated, it doesn't matter how many points you scored.
By this measure, none of Bush's fiscal accomplishments (were there any?) amount to anything, because they were all claimed at the expense of creating a huge budget defecit.
Nothing he cites as a foreign-policy success earns a point, because he had to use war powers to do it.
And he doesn't even get the benefit of the can't-prove-a-negative think of "nothing bad has happened in the U.S., except for that little 9/11 thing" because of the way he's had to stomp on civil liberties to make that happen.
Give me someone who's ready to play by the rules over someone who can only win by cheating, please.
That was a rather bold reply...