?Those who would trade their liberties for a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.?
Another good one:
If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money it values more, it will lose that, too.
-- W. Somerset Maugham
Aren't monuments erected to celebrate things that have passed? Shouldn't a culture that embraces free expression and the curious study of new ideas be enough of a "monument"?
My brother's the same way. He habitually offers 50% to 75% of the asking price, even at large chain stores. And often gets at least some discount. He is 6'4", muscled, and and be somewhat menacing, tho...
- - - - -
Re:Someone finally understands
on
Linux and Shrek
·
· Score: 2
Interestingly, I just got this fortune from Slashdot:
If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money it values more, it will lose that, too.
-- W. Somerset Maugham
Their service is abysimal! Tucows/OpenSRS should get control of the.com (and other Verisign) domains! It takes forever to use Verisign's creaky, error-prone, unaccountable "process" to get domains added, deleted, transferred, etc. Contrast that with any OpenSRS registrar, such as domainmonger, where I can make all changes to a domain myself, via an https web form, cheaper that Verisign charges for their "service".
This got pushed off the end, so I'm copying it here so people will see it:
... I'm of the opinion that there should be a few less authorizations and a few more limitations. For instance, "To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;"... is kind of broad, and means that the Federal Government gets to police the whole ocean, as well as "define and punish... offenses against the law of nations".. i.e., be hte police of the world. I'd prefer Switzerland's approach of neutrality combined with a highly armed and trained populace to ward off attacks.
Interestingly, this limitation: "No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." would seem to put the damper on internet sales taxes, just as it has on catalog mail-order sales; if you're not in the state it's being shipped from, then the good is being exported and the state can levy no tax on it.
And there's teh famous "Interstate commerce" clause: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes" -- on top of which they have balanced so many laws. The problem with regulating commerce is the same as with regulating religion. The government and those it regulates end up scratching each other's backs, until the lines of power are blurred. If government had no power to grant special priviledge to businesses, think how much cleaner our government would be. I doubt "Campaign Finance Reform" (i.e., an attack on the 1st amendment) would be an issue. Why bribe people who can't help you? And why become part of the government to make a buck from it, if you can't make a buck from it?
For good measure, here are the specific authorizations granted the federal government:
Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.
[...]
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.
No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
... I'm of the opinion that there should be a few less authorizations and a few more limitations. For instance, "To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;"... is kind of broad, and means that the Federal Government gets to police the whole ocean, as well as "define and punish... offenses against the law of nations".. i.e., be hte police of the world. I'd prefer Switzerland's approach of neutrality combined with a highly armed and trained populace to ward off attacks.
Interestingly, this limitation: "No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." would seem to put the damper on internet sales taxes, just as it has on catalog mail-order sales; if you're not in the state it's being shipped from, then the good is being exported and the state can levy no tax on it.
And there's teh famous "Interstate commerce" clause: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes" -- on top of which they have balanced so many laws. The problem with regulating commerce is the same as with regulating religion. The government and those it regulates end up scratching each other's backs, until the lines of power are blurred. If government had no power to grant special priviledge to businesses, think how much cleaner our government would be. I doubt "Campaign Finance Reform" (i.e., an attack on the 1st amendment) would be an issue. Why bribe people who can't help you? And why become part of the government to make a buck from it, if you can't make a buck from it?
One reason America's form of government works well is that in it, power is distributed among its levels. There's a general concept of putting power close to those it affects; and even at the highest levels, government is elected or otherwise subject to change and influence by the governed. The states are a laboratory for government, and provide choice and therefor competition, which is a good thing. For instance, the "Uniform Commercial Code" is not Federal Law. It's a set of nearly -- but not totally -- similar laws adopted independantly by each of the states.
With a one-world government as it is currently shaping up, we're in for a bad thing. How much of the UN and NGO government-wannabes are elected and accountable to the people directly? None. When was the last time you voted for any part of the UN? Including all the treaties that set up law we must live under that may, in fact, limit, alter or supplant local law, including the Constitution?
"Federalism" isn't a complete joke, and it's a good thing it's not. We need more Federalism, not less. And any would-be World Government needs to be very Federalist.
The whole idea behind the US Federal Government was a common defense for the states, uniform inter-state commerce, a uniform currency, and standard weights and measures. That was it. The Constitution is a limitation on the powers of the government, not the people. The Constitution did not provide for federal environmental law, federal hate-crimes law, federal workplace reglations, etc. See Section 8. As Madison stated, the Bill of Rights was redundant. Thankfully, we have it; because the clear (back then) intention of the Constitution has been subverted, and without the Amendments listing specific rights, we'd be a lot worse off than we are today.
Federalism is not isolationism. And Free Trade is not isolationism. But forcing our laws on other nations in Imperialism. And the UN forcing other nations' laws, or extra-U.S. laws of their own devising, on us is as well.
I'm of the opinion that, U.S. protections for commerce end at our borders. I believe in a separation of Church and State, and think a separation of Business and State is a good thing as well. Look at the mess that combining church and state got us into (i.e., the Dark Ages). Mixing Business and State is doing no better for us. How about this for an Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of trade, of the free excercise thereof."
If IBM wants to do business in China, good for them, but they don't get to run to the U.S. Federal Government for aid in doing it. And special subsidies and protections don't get handed out to businesses like ADM ("ethanol subsidy") and tobacco farmers (tobacco quotas and price subsidies). Also, no monopolies. All actual monopolies are charted by governments. The rest are, at best, temporary -- given policing of illegal behavior such as fraud, threats, etc.
This does not stop the government for regulating fraud, or outlawing and punishing actual crimes, such as theft, maiming and killing people, etc.
I agree; but a treaty that causes each nation to enforce the laws of the other signatories is not a good treaty, and its product is not free trade.
I'm all for free trade. But if I wanted to live under another country's laws, I figured I'd have to move there, rather than they would bring the law here.
We can have trade -- even free trade -- without this kind of mess.
All I can say about this is that I hope that a sensible copyright scheme comes out of this.
Right, like that's going to happen. The whole point of this treaty is to further reduce your freedom and the freedom of citizens in other countries as well.
Hilary Rosen, Jack Valenti and Graham Beachum: not freedom fighters.
Er, I mean, "never!"
At the risk of waking up the conspiracy theorists, this is one more step towards a global government. The whole idea of treaties like this is to bind together the member governments. Treay here, treaty there, and after a while all the gaps are sewn shut.
George Washington:
Why, by interweaving our
destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and
prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship,
interest, humor, or caprice?
It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with
any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now
at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of
patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim
no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty
is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those
engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion
it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
Internationalism -- derided as "globalism" and falsely presented as "free trade" (as opposed to "sanctioned and licensed trade", which it is), is going in exactly the direction George Washington warned against. More entangling alliances. Less sovreignty.
Re:Not that different from what we have now
on
Is Law Copyrighted?
·
· Score: 2
Bottom line: How can you ask people to obey laws they don't understand?
Perhaps juries should review the law to see if it is comprehensible. And, rather than the judge instructing them in the law, the jurors are given a copy of it. They then write their own interpretation of what it means. Then that is given to the judge, who must use it to adjudicate that law. In other words, the law is what the citizens understand it to be.
Or, rather than "event-driven" review as stated above, every law is reviewed every 10 or 20 years ot make sure it's still wanted, and to make sure the language is comprehensible to average people.
Theoretically that [citizen juries] is who we have elected to represent us.
Yep. I hear "Theory" is a nice place -- everything works there. But, juries adjudicate the law after the fact; why not have them pass judgement on it beforehand as well?
According to the Fifth Circuit, "due process" access to the building code requires, at a minimum , avaiability "for inspection and copying at the city offices in towns where they have been adopted".
Suppose I sit in the office with my laptop, which is a webserver with wireless internet... broadcasting the text of the law. Would this be "copying at the city office?"
Perhaps it should actually be illegal for lawyers to write laws. Or at least, proposed laws must be reviewed by citizen juries in advance of their acceptance as laws. And the review should be blind -- i.e., without lawyers explaining what the intent of the law is. The jury should write down what they believe the intent of the law is; and their written description of the intent is what should be used to adjudicate cases that are subject to that law, should it be accepted. And professional lawmen should be disqualified from sitting on those juries.
In a free republic, any citizen should be able to understand and know the law without the help of "experts" and "professionals."
Busy posting the 2nd and 14th amendments, and the Declaration of Independance.:)
As a Libertarian, I say, make as many copies of any law you want, and disseminate it any way you wish. And if they don't like it, don't forget your right to self-defense. Remember and defend this nation's principles of self-governance and the rule of law; America specifically rejected the rule of man in favor of written, accessible law known and approved by the people who must live under it.
In other words, as a Libertarian, I'd be handing out copies on the street corner, as well as on my web site, and telling those folks "fuck you; either I get to hand it out, or it's not the law, you pick" when they came to complain about it.:)
So it's ok to provide the consumer with the applications he needs as long as they are collected from multiple authors?
I'd say this is a case of crack-smoking. Let MS put whatever they want on the CDs. If they piss off partners, that's their problem. It's not a good thing for the Feds to be sticking their nose into. Why make MSFT "play nice?" Let them make their own bed, then lie in it.
If you are going to live in a capitalist society (which most of us don't really have a choice), then you gotta do SOMETHING to make money to survive.
I'm pretty sure work has to be performed in Socialist societies, too.
On another note, since Douglas Adams died today, we should do something in his memory, to memorialize his great contribution to our culture. I suggest that we load up all of the marketing people onto "B" Ark and send it on its way...;)
Slashdot Mirror
The quote is,
?Those who would trade their liberties for a little safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.?
Another good one:
If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money it values more, it will lose that, too.
-- W. Somerset Maugham
- - - - -
Aren't monuments erected to celebrate things that have passed? Shouldn't a culture that embraces free expression and the curious study of new ideas be enough of a "monument"?
Oh, wait...
- - - - -
My brother's the same way. He habitually offers 50% to 75% of the asking price, even at large chain stores. And often gets at least some discount. He is 6'4", muscled, and and be somewhat menacing, tho...
- - - - -
- - - - -
Their service is abysimal! Tucows/OpenSRS should get control of the .com (and other Verisign) domains! It takes forever to use Verisign's creaky, error-prone, unaccountable "process" to get domains added, deleted, transferred, etc. Contrast that with any OpenSRS registrar, such as domainmonger, where I can make all changes to a domain myself, via an https web form, cheaper that Verisign charges for their "service".
- - - - -
didn't even come out with a final product that's useful.
:P
I like it. It's great for use with my digital camera, scanner, and mp3 collection.
- - - - -
Yeah, California's neither Liberal, nor in the west. :P
You advertise your beliefs pretty well, BTW.
- - - - -
Well, Nautilus is in gnome-cvs. :)
- - - - -
This got pushed off the end, so I'm copying it here so people will see it:
... is kind of broad, and means that the Federal Government gets to police the whole ocean, as well as "define and punish ... offenses against the law of nations" .. i.e., be hte police of the world. I'd prefer Switzerland's approach of neutrality combined with a highly armed and trained populace to ward off attacks.
... I'm of the opinion that there should be a few less authorizations and a few more limitations. For instance, "To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;"
Interestingly, this limitation: "No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." would seem to put the damper on internet sales taxes, just as it has on catalog mail-order sales; if you're not in the state it's being shipped from, then the good is being exported and the state can levy no tax on it.
And there's teh famous "Interstate commerce" clause: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes" -- on top of which they have balanced so many laws. The problem with regulating commerce is the same as with regulating religion. The government and those it regulates end up scratching each other's backs, until the lines of power are blurred. If government had no power to grant special priviledge to businesses, think how much cleaner our government would be. I doubt "Campaign Finance Reform" (i.e., an attack on the 1st amendment) would be an issue. Why bribe people who can't help you? And why become part of the government to make a buck from it, if you can't make a buck from it?
- - - - -
For good measure, here are the specific authorizations granted the federal government:
... is kind of broad, and means that the Federal Government gets to police the whole ocean, as well as "define and punish ... offenses against the law of nations" .. i.e., be hte police of the world. I'd prefer Switzerland's approach of neutrality combined with a highly armed and trained populace to ward off attacks.
Section 7. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.
[...]
Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.
No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
Section 10. No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
... I'm of the opinion that there should be a few less authorizations and a few more limitations. For instance, "To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;"
Interestingly, this limitation: "No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state." would seem to put the damper on internet sales taxes, just as it has on catalog mail-order sales; if you're not in the state it's being shipped from, then the good is being exported and the state can levy no tax on it.
And there's teh famous "Interstate commerce" clause: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes" -- on top of which they have balanced so many laws. The problem with regulating commerce is the same as with regulating religion. The government and those it regulates end up scratching each other's backs, until the lines of power are blurred. If government had no power to grant special priviledge to businesses, think how much cleaner our government would be. I doubt "Campaign Finance Reform" (i.e., an attack on the 1st amendment) would be an issue. Why bribe people who can't help you? And why become part of the government to make a buck from it, if you can't make a buck from it?
- - - - -
One reason America's form of government works well is that in it, power is distributed among its levels. There's a general concept of putting power close to those it affects; and even at the highest levels, government is elected or otherwise subject to change and influence by the governed. The states are a laboratory for government, and provide choice and therefor competition, which is a good thing. For instance, the "Uniform Commercial Code" is not Federal Law. It's a set of nearly -- but not totally -- similar laws adopted independantly by each of the states.
With a one-world government as it is currently shaping up, we're in for a bad thing. How much of the UN and NGO government-wannabes are elected and accountable to the people directly? None. When was the last time you voted for any part of the UN? Including all the treaties that set up law we must live under that may, in fact, limit, alter or supplant local law, including the Constitution?
"Federalism" isn't a complete joke, and it's a good thing it's not. We need more Federalism, not less. And any would-be World Government needs to be very Federalist.
The whole idea behind the US Federal Government was a common defense for the states, uniform inter-state commerce, a uniform currency, and standard weights and measures. That was it. The Constitution is a limitation on the powers of the government, not the people. The Constitution did not provide for federal environmental law, federal hate-crimes law, federal workplace reglations, etc. See Section 8. As Madison stated, the Bill of Rights was redundant. Thankfully, we have it; because the clear (back then) intention of the Constitution has been subverted, and without the Amendments listing specific rights, we'd be a lot worse off than we are today.
Federalism is not isolationism. And Free Trade is not isolationism. But forcing our laws on other nations in Imperialism. And the UN forcing other nations' laws, or extra-U.S. laws of their own devising, on us is as well.
I'm of the opinion that, U.S. protections for commerce end at our borders. I believe in a separation of Church and State, and think a separation of Business and State is a good thing as well. Look at the mess that combining church and state got us into (i.e., the Dark Ages). Mixing Business and State is doing no better for us. How about this for an Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of trade, of the free excercise thereof."
If IBM wants to do business in China, good for them, but they don't get to run to the U.S. Federal Government for aid in doing it. And special subsidies and protections don't get handed out to businesses like ADM ("ethanol subsidy") and tobacco farmers (tobacco quotas and price subsidies). Also, no monopolies. All actual monopolies are charted by governments. The rest are, at best, temporary -- given policing of illegal behavior such as fraud, threats, etc.
This does not stop the government for regulating fraud, or outlawing and punishing actual crimes, such as theft, maiming and killing people, etc.
- - - - -
I agree; but a treaty that causes each nation to enforce the laws of the other signatories is not a good treaty, and its product is not free trade.
I'm all for free trade. But if I wanted to live under another country's laws, I figured I'd have to move there, rather than they would bring the law here.
We can have trade -- even free trade -- without this kind of mess.
- - - - -
All I can say about this is that I hope that a sensible copyright scheme comes out of this.
Right, like that's going to happen. The whole point of this treaty is to further reduce your freedom and the freedom of citizens in other countries as well.
Hilary Rosen, Jack Valenti and Graham Beachum: not freedom fighters.
- - - - -
At the risk of waking up the conspiracy theorists, this is one more step towards a global government. The whole idea of treaties like this is to bind together the member governments. Treay here, treaty there, and after a while all the gaps are sewn shut.
George Washington: Internationalism -- derided as "globalism" and falsely presented as "free trade" (as opposed to "sanctioned and licensed trade", which it is), is going in exactly the direction George Washington warned against. More entangling alliances. Less sovreignty.
- - - - -
I should have shut up a long time before I did. :)
- - - - -
Bottom line: How can you ask people to obey laws they don't understand?
Perhaps juries should review the law to see if it is comprehensible. And, rather than the judge instructing them in the law, the jurors are given a copy of it. They then write their own interpretation of what it means. Then that is given to the judge, who must use it to adjudicate that law. In other words, the law is what the citizens understand it to be.
Or, rather than "event-driven" review as stated above, every law is reviewed every 10 or 20 years ot make sure it's still wanted, and to make sure the language is comprehensible to average people.
- - - - -
Theoretically that [citizen juries] is who we have elected to represent us.
Yep. I hear "Theory" is a nice place -- everything works there. But, juries adjudicate the law after the fact; why not have them pass judgement on it beforehand as well?
- - - - -
"A Democracy will survive only until its citizens begin to vote themselves money."
The use of the government to make money is not capitalism. It's more like kleptocracy.
- - - - -
According to the Fifth Circuit, "due process" access to the building code requires, at a minimum , avaiability "for inspection and copying at the city offices in towns where they have been adopted".
Suppose I sit in the office with my laptop, which is a webserver with wireless internet... broadcasting the text of the law. Would this be "copying at the city office?"
- - - - -
Perhaps it should actually be illegal for lawyers to write laws. Or at least, proposed laws must be reviewed by citizen juries in advance of their acceptance as laws. And the review should be blind -- i.e., without lawyers explaining what the intent of the law is. The jury should write down what they believe the intent of the law is; and their written description of the intent is what should be used to adjudicate cases that are subject to that law, should it be accepted. And professional lawmen should be disqualified from sitting on those juries.
In a free republic, any citizen should be able to understand and know the law without the help of "experts" and "professionals."
- - - - -
Where are the libertarians on this one?
:)
:)
Busy posting the 2nd and 14th amendments, and the Declaration of Independance.
As a Libertarian, I say, make as many copies of any law you want, and disseminate it any way you wish. And if they don't like it, don't forget your right to self-defense. Remember and defend this nation's principles of self-governance and the rule of law; America specifically rejected the rule of man in favor of written, accessible law known and approved by the people who must live under it.
In other words, as a Libertarian, I'd be handing out copies on the street corner, as well as on my web site, and telling those folks "fuck you; either I get to hand it out, or it's not the law, you pick" when they came to complain about it.
- - - - -
So it's ok to provide the consumer with the applications he needs as long as they are collected from multiple authors?
I'd say this is a case of crack-smoking. Let MS put whatever they want on the CDs. If they piss off partners, that's their problem. It's not a good thing for the Feds to be sticking their nose into. Why make MSFT "play nice?" Let them make their own bed, then lie in it.
- - - - -
If you are going to live in a capitalist society (which most of us don't really have a choice), then you gotta do SOMETHING to make money to survive.
;)
I'm pretty sure work has to be performed in Socialist societies, too.
On another note, since Douglas Adams died today, we should do something in his memory, to memorialize his great contribution to our culture. I suggest that we load up all of the marketing people onto "B" Ark and send it on its way...
- - - - -
Please don't insult Dog Fancy magazine needlessly.
- - - - -
I would like a way to see all comments that have recieved positive moderation, regardless of their actual score.
- - - - -