Doesn't this call into question everything Snowden has said?
Nice try. People who make any of this about Snowden are trying to hide the fact that the government is violating the constitution and people's fundamental liberties.
And yes, just like 'democracy' can be used for oppression, people who want to oppress can use violation to try to take over the government. The potential for abuse does not make an entire thing bad.
Who decides when these "very specific circumstances" of yours have been met?
Like always, people. That's how it has always been throughout history. This is a 'solved' problem.
Do you agree with their decision?
No, but I don't have to.
In a civilized, mature, democracy... you fight your battles with debate and ideas and elections. Not intimidation, not violence.
That's a nice black and white world you have there. But consider a democracy where the the majority is violently oppressing a minority and the minorities need to defend themselves and change the system. You think that peace will work 100% of the time, no matter the circumstances? That is naive.
What you are suggesting should be an option here is very similar to the situation we see happening in a country like Afghanistan.
You seem to be thinking I think people should use violence willy nilly, but I have suggested no such thing. I am suggesting that, theoretically, there are instances where I would think violence is acceptable. You are suggesting that it is never acceptable, no matter what. Since I consider defending yourself (and eliminating your oppressors, giving you the opportunity to recreate the system) a basic right, I reject that. I'm not talking about any country that currently exists, or any specific circumstance, just that it's not so black-and-white.
I do not support any system that allows the majority to violate the basic rights of the minority. You keep restating your points and assuming that it's bad to oppose 'democracy' (we're a constitutional republic, to be more descriptive). I am, in reality, saying that, under very specific circumstances, it is okay to use violence to overturn a corrupt government, whether it's democratic or not. Your vehement disagreement with this is very startling and naive.
However, that is what democracy is. Everyone votes. The majority rules.
I'm glad we don't have such a democracy. I have no problem being anti-democracy. There should always be checks on the majority's power, and the majority can (and has been) be wrong.
If you don't like that system and think that you should be armed in order to protect yourself from it, then what you are saying is that you do not like the democratic system that our founders created and that is outlined in our Constitution.
You seem to be appealing to popularity, or assuming that opposing the majority is okay. Any system that would allow the majority to infringe upon the basic rights of the minority is immoral and broken, so opposing it is perfectly okay.
I am talking about when the majority is violently oppressing the minority, by the way. And with enough pressure, that can happen in any country. In those cases, violence may be acceptable, and being against the system is 100% okay with me.
I do not think the founding fathers were all-knowing, and neither did they. Guess what? The constitution can obviously be amended! Don't like it? Try to amend it. Anything else is unacceptable and violates the basic social contract that the government is required to adhere to, the one that gives it any legitimacy at all.
So when you suggest that we need to be armed in order to protect ourselves against our government, what you are doing is suggesting possible violence against the people that WE elected. This line of thinking can be called a lot of things. But for sure, it is Anti-Democracy.
You seem to be under the delusion that whatever the majority does must be right, or that everyone votes for the same people; neither things are true. You often get stuck with what *other people* vote for, and what if people continually vote for tyranny? Should people sit back and do nothing?
I'm not saying violence is the right answer or that we're anywhere near that point, but I don't care for this "It's a democracy, so all is well!" attitude. I do believe there are certain situations--yes, even in a 'democracy'--where using violence to stop and oppressive government would be justified. But it's basically the very last option.
The first amendment guarantees the right of 'free speech', but you can't yell 'fire" in a crowded theater.
Not because the first amendment says so, but because some judges got 'creative.' By the way, I wouldn't be citing that case; they used that verdict to arrest war protestors. Not exactly a good example to cite when you're trying to argue for 'reasonable' restrictions on freedom of speech, as it plainly shows how any such restrictions will be abused.
You may not agree with a judge's ruling but they are better qualified than the both of us. I am not saying they are infallible but the system exists for a very good reason.
The system exists as it does because there are no options for it to exist without authority figures, not because judges are inherently more qualified to interpret the constitution. They've 'interpreted' (Read: Altered.) the constitution in the most ridiculous ways in the past, so I'm not convinced they're any less corruptible or foolish than anyone else. That and the constitution isn't some obscure document that's difficult for someone with a bit of intelligence to read.
Thomas Jefferson: "You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.
Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is “boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,” and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.
The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. [...]"
I quoted it because I agree with it and I think it provides some insight.
You may want to revisit what constitutes free speech. Your ability to disregard copyright and distribute something isn't what most would consider protected free speech.
I don't know about the other guy, but I've never cared what most people think, at least in the sense that I will retain my own opinions even if the majority disagrees with them. Most people are unintelligent and do not care about freedom to begin with.
The first amendment lists no exceptions, and comes after the copyright clause.
Patents on the other hand is not as clear cut as copyright.
It is to me. I'm not talking about constitutionality here, but rights. If someone patents a certain method, you will likely get punished if you use that same method to achieve some goal, even if you use your own resources. The idea that you can prevent someone from following a particular set of steps done in a particular way is utterly preposterous and disgusting to me. I won't ever accept it.
The US was founded on providing fundamental freedoms while insuring that those freedoms will be protected from aggressors.
And we're not doing a very good job, as he pointed out. The government *is* the aggressor in many cases.
Too bad the party that vehemently defends an interpretation of the 2nd amendment doesn't feel as strongly about the rest of the amendments.
Slashdot Mirror
Doesn't this call into question everything Snowden has said?
Nice try. People who make any of this about Snowden are trying to hide the fact that the government is violating the constitution and people's fundamental liberties.
And yes, just like 'democracy' can be used for oppression, people who want to oppress can use violation to try to take over the government. The potential for abuse does not make an entire thing bad.
Who decides when these "very specific circumstances" of yours have been met?
Like always, people. That's how it has always been throughout history. This is a 'solved' problem.
Do you agree with their decision?
No, but I don't have to.
In a civilized, mature, democracy... you fight your battles with debate and ideas and elections. Not intimidation, not violence.
That's a nice black and white world you have there. But consider a democracy where the the majority is violently oppressing a minority and the minorities need to defend themselves and change the system. You think that peace will work 100% of the time, no matter the circumstances? That is naive.
What you are suggesting should be an option here is very similar to the situation we see happening in a country like Afghanistan.
You seem to be thinking I think people should use violence willy nilly, but I have suggested no such thing. I am suggesting that, theoretically, there are instances where I would think violence is acceptable. You are suggesting that it is never acceptable, no matter what. Since I consider defending yourself (and eliminating your oppressors, giving you the opportunity to recreate the system) a basic right, I reject that. I'm not talking about any country that currently exists, or any specific circumstance, just that it's not so black-and-white.
I do not support any system that allows the majority to violate the basic rights of the minority. You keep restating your points and assuming that it's bad to oppose 'democracy' (we're a constitutional republic, to be more descriptive). I am, in reality, saying that, under very specific circumstances, it is okay to use violence to overturn a corrupt government, whether it's democratic or not. Your vehement disagreement with this is very startling and naive.
However, that is what democracy is. Everyone votes. The majority rules.
I'm glad we don't have such a democracy. I have no problem being anti-democracy. There should always be checks on the majority's power, and the majority can (and has been) be wrong.
If you don't like that system and think that you should be armed in order to protect yourself from it, then what you are saying is that you do not like the democratic system that our founders created and that is outlined in our Constitution.
You seem to be appealing to popularity, or assuming that opposing the majority is okay. Any system that would allow the majority to infringe upon the basic rights of the minority is immoral and broken, so opposing it is perfectly okay.
I am talking about when the majority is violently oppressing the minority, by the way. And with enough pressure, that can happen in any country. In those cases, violence may be acceptable, and being against the system is 100% okay with me.
I do not think the founding fathers were all-knowing, and neither did they. Guess what? The constitution can obviously be amended! Don't like it? Try to amend it. Anything else is unacceptable and violates the basic social contract that the government is required to adhere to, the one that gives it any legitimacy at all.
So when you suggest that we need to be armed in order to protect ourselves against our government, what you are doing is suggesting possible violence against the people that WE elected. This line of thinking can be called a lot of things. But for sure, it is Anti-Democracy.
You seem to be under the delusion that whatever the majority does must be right, or that everyone votes for the same people; neither things are true. You often get stuck with what *other people* vote for, and what if people continually vote for tyranny? Should people sit back and do nothing?
I'm not saying violence is the right answer or that we're anywhere near that point, but I don't care for this "It's a democracy, so all is well!" attitude. I do believe there are certain situations--yes, even in a 'democracy'--where using violence to stop and oppressive government would be justified. But it's basically the very last option.
The first amendment guarantees the right of 'free speech', but you can't yell 'fire" in a crowded theater.
Not because the first amendment says so, but because some judges got 'creative.' By the way, I wouldn't be citing that case; they used that verdict to arrest war protestors. Not exactly a good example to cite when you're trying to argue for 'reasonable' restrictions on freedom of speech, as it plainly shows how any such restrictions will be abused.
You may not agree with a judge's ruling but they are better qualified than the both of us. I am not saying they are infallible but the system exists for a very good reason.
The system exists as it does because there are no options for it to exist without authority figures, not because judges are inherently more qualified to interpret the constitution. They've 'interpreted' (Read: Altered.) the constitution in the most ridiculous ways in the past, so I'm not convinced they're any less corruptible or foolish than anyone else. That and the constitution isn't some obscure document that's difficult for someone with a bit of intelligence to read.
Thomas Jefferson: "You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.
Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is “boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem,” and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.
The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. [...]"
I quoted it because I agree with it and I think it provides some insight.
You may want to revisit what constitutes free speech. Your ability to disregard copyright and distribute something isn't what most would consider protected free speech.
I don't know about the other guy, but I've never cared what most people think, at least in the sense that I will retain my own opinions even if the majority disagrees with them. Most people are unintelligent and do not care about freedom to begin with.
The first amendment lists no exceptions, and comes after the copyright clause.
Patents on the other hand is not as clear cut as copyright.
It is to me. I'm not talking about constitutionality here, but rights. If someone patents a certain method, you will likely get punished if you use that same method to achieve some goal, even if you use your own resources. The idea that you can prevent someone from following a particular set of steps done in a particular way is utterly preposterous and disgusting to me. I won't ever accept it.
The US was founded on providing fundamental freedoms while insuring that those freedoms will be protected from aggressors.
And we're not doing a very good job, as he pointed out. The government *is* the aggressor in many cases.
Too bad the party that vehemently defends an interpretation of the 2nd amendment doesn't feel as strongly about the rest of the amendments.
Agreed.