I think your memory is a bit faulty. The 70s and 80s were the beneficiaries of the free speech movements of the 60s. If anything, they were less censored than even today (something like Wizards was a mere PG rating even with Nazi imagery, overt sexual innuendo, and violence).
And as someone who spent time at both 4chan and 8chan, there was honest to goodness free exchange of ideas where the trolls were mostly diffuse among the other conversations happening. The move towards censorship actually made matters worse, concentrating the extremist to point where no one else would bother to spend time there (congratulations! You've now inadvertently made a community).
And beyond that, there is a failure to engage even the most repugnant points of view, instead attempting to make gated communities of approved speech to where even the conversations here are mostly bland, typical, and boring.
In politics, there are no perfect answers. It is a question of compromise, and plotting the what seems to be the best path towards ideals from the numerous paths available.
While the "libertarian" argument against BI seems to consist of mostly taxes are theft (unless they support things I support) and an over-reliance on the government, which leads to increased government power.
For BI, if everyone is essentially getting the same, that reduces government power, as they lose the authority to pick winners and losers from the public trust. Can't pander to certain groups for increased benefits (such is commonly done with the elderly). Can't promise any increases unless it goes to everyone. That is a very libertarian argument at reducing the influence of government (plus getting rid of entire agencies that oversee the various programs. You've just reduced the size of government tremendously).
With regards to taxation, while overall taxes will probably increase, since the bulk of taxes goes directly to the population, that leaves little room for government largesse in terms of subsidies, pet programs, and other attempts to curry favor. The money simply isn't there.
I invite libertarians to look carefully at cost/benefit of BI in terms of overall goals, and especially means to achieve those goals through other means (it's not like libertarianism has caught fire with the public at large). If there is a better way forward, I'd certainly like to hear it.
If it did, the courts would be guilty of cruel and unusual punishment (misdemeanors don't usually come with an indefinite jail term).
The whole thing is ludicrous as the state is essentially compelling you to offer up evidence against yourself. It's not even a question of evidence tampering, but merely a suspicion that the contents of the hard drive contain evidence, and the legal authority to make you say "uncle".
Perhaps the hard drives contain a list of people he's killed. Perhaps they contain records of gambling receipts. Perhaps it details every furry convention he's been to. Whatever. He has numerous reasons not to divulge to contents of the HDs which have nothing to do with the case, so the whole thing seems like a fishing expedition.
The fact that they are sitting on him instead of going forward with the case suggests the case is weak.
The police are in physical custody of the hard drives. The terms of the warrant are complete. Just because the contents contain a digital cypher instead of an analogue one, it seems we throw every other aspect of legal rulings out the window. They might as well claim he is the Zodiac Killer as well since he is refusing to offer the key to those messages as well.
First you have to do a 5 paragraph screed about the evils of money in politics with subtle hints that the Koch Bros are in league with Satan (or big oil. Same difference really).
Then you do at least 7 posts of how Republicans are out to eat babies, rape your grandmother, and cheat at softball.
And then you mention Soros as a half-assed et tu and mention the CCX in passing before the popcorn starts.
"The researchers, from the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) found the average parent takes their eyes off the road for three minutes and 22 seconds during a 16-minute trip.
I know you've been working on your comprehension skills, but there is still room for improvement.
Oh, and the headline reads: Children more distracting than mobile phones.
And you should work on your understanding of the word draconian and the idea of apt punishment.
As it is, I've already seen drinking and driving go from a reasonable justification to get impaired drivers off the road to an ever increasing escalation of moral signaling that hasn't noticeably reduced the number of drinking and driving accidents, but has been a fucking goldmine for concerned citizens to keep upping the ante with legal limits and punishments and government involvement. You'd think offering free taxi service to and from any bar would be cheaper than locking people up, and would actually reduce the number of incidences, but no, instead we get people puffing out their chests and demanding even more stringent laws when their first round has been an absolute failure. Explain to me again how making texting and driving a felony actually reduces the number of instances? You can't because it is an idiotic way to approach this after the fact, when you are better served looking at prevention through better driver training and licensing requirements.
Not to mention I don't see how texting and driving is more of a distraction than having some screaming toddler in the back, making the drive home after a horrendous double shift, or infotainment systems in cars. Shouldn't these be felonies too? Why so selective in your pretentious march to keep the roads safe?
Yes, we should make people ineligible for certain jobs and possibly take away their voting rights and a host of other penalties for something which, while dangerous, hasn't harmed anyone at the time.
Do you hear the madness that comes out of your mouth?
So there was a significant rise in people renting, without nearly as significant a rise in available rental units. So, again, huge surprise, rents went up.
If you are making an unsubstantiated claim that minimum rents follow welfare, then yes, pretty damn ignorant.
You might note that "median" by necessity also must include the "minimum" in its formulation, and especially for the 1980s onward when there was welfare reform and benefits decreased, and there was the S and L Crisis which tanked property values; yet rents still increased. Why? You mean to tell me that the upper bounds were sufficiently high enough to increase the median through a major banking crisis, even though the minimum should have fallen dramatically by your narrative?
Uh-huh.
You might travel a bit and see that there are several more ghost towns throughout than areas awaiting renewal. Properties abandoned by their owners, where even squatters fear to tread. It would seem collecting even some money is better than collecting no money, but if even welfare recipients turn their noses at them, what then?
In short, your explanations fall short of observed reality.
So how do you account for the average increase if welfare sets the minimum rent?
By my estimation all rents are set by supply and demand. There is no minimum rent. Numerous buildings go vacant and become dilapidated because there isn't even enough interest for someone to live there as a caretaker or squatter, and prevent the building from being demolished. Not to mention all rents have to compete with sleeping under a bridge or jail at a minimum. Welfare has nothing to do with it.
More, I'm looking at how citizen juries help to reduce corruption. They tend to have limited functions, and mostly just do oversight to make sure nothing shady is taking place.
I actually like the idea of essentially no screening whatsoever.
It sets a society's priorities when the crazy guy in the street could possibly be a member of congress, and in its own way, complimentary to BI.
This is a feature, not a bug. I would anticipate several of the wealthy not being able to take a year off for service, which again diffuses power.
Again, in my fairy world of unicorn kisses, people would be paid whatever is the median income for a year's service.
Of course people are always free to decline, but at least for the poor, making the median wage for a year would be a step up, most others wouldn't notice a difference, but I can't fathom many CEOs serving.
Pegging it to GDP means it is self-correcting for most abuses. Changing the tax code to something like a Land Value Tax (completely voluntary for the most part ) eliminates most of the favor trading with the tax code (and eliminates tax havens as well) and simplifies collection.
And, if we're wishing for unicorns, creating a third house of congress that is chosen completely at random from each state (in my mind's eye, I see them as only being able to debate and vote on laws) keeps in check the power brokers.
Ideally, you should anticipate corruption and design your systems around that. Markets work better than central planning. Simple systems are easier to detect and correct abuse than complex ones, and diffusing political power keeps power abuses in check.
The intent isn't to get pedophiles off the street, but effectively ban all porn. You had the same MO in the 80s with Judith Reisman claiming Playboy facilitated child abuse by having underage looking models, and shoots that simulated underage girls (because your standard 12 year old has 34DD breasts)..
I mean after this report why would anyone visit any porn site, knowing full well there was a possibility of child porn there unless that's what they were looking for? You can't even report it without an admission of a crime.
Even in the days before the internet, child porn stings were incredibly dubious (really, read the history. The vast majority of child porn was produced by the US government for sting operations), but any sense of due process is just covering for child molesters. Where there is smoke there must be fire.
The real problem is that while decency laws are localized, the web is not, and what may be perfectly legal in one jurisdiction is worthy of hanging in another. This sets the stage for The Great Firewall, and ultimately shutting down all porn sites, just in case.
Utah has the highest consumption rate of porn, and there really hasn't been a good explanation for it.
On the plus side, it's nice to see the religious right taking on the mantle of anti-porn crusaders again from feminist, as the you can only get so far with claims of misogyny.. Erototoxins are where its at.
Unfortunately for him, this discussion already took place in 1969 (snark), via the President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. Thus far, I haven't heard much in the way to contradict their findings.
And then there is that pesky free speech issue, which regardless of public health problems, the courts haven't seen fit to abridge.
I'll be the first to admit I'm dismayed at the prevalence of porn now, but simply asking people to use more discretion isn't nearly as headline grabbing as claiming porn is a health crisis.
Maybe he can look into why there is such a problem in his own state and get back to us?
The justification raised for harsh penalties for marijuana use (like the recent life sentence in Alabama) was that it was a "gateway" drug, and that use would lead to other "harder" drugs being used. So again, you'd expect an explosion in drug use in states that legalized.
Except that didn't happen, and drug use numbers before and after legalization remained about the same across the board for all drugs, and I have every reason to suspect that much like the gateway theory, the notion that hard drug use would spike after legalization is also erroneous.
And I could point to the effects of hard drugs, like the recent Johns Hopkins Psilocybin Research Project in which participants rated their experience as among the most significant in their lives, the study which stated use reduced anxiety over dying in hospice patients, and I can go on ad nauseam. Why are these things illegal again?
Current drug policy has been based on lies and misinformation, and I really have to wonder about the junkie stereotype if they are able to navigate the complexities of anonymous web use, accessing the dark web, and making use of bitcoin, especially when most law makers can't wrap their head around how these things operate.
The problem is you then perpetuate businesses using the public trust as their own slush fund while offering very little in return. The public gets raped twice- once from paying the actual taxes that corps.skiver, and again when the products are sold back to them as jobs move elsewhere.
It all seems a bit of economic brinkmanship, with corps. threatening to crash the party unless they get dibs on research dollars, and sucking that dry until the infrastructure crumbles and they move on to another market.
I'm actually okay with government R/D for BIG things like the Desertron which companies could never hope to fund privately (and where were the calls for increased R/D and more importantly tax dollars when that was being closed down? Fuckers!).
But this idea that corps. deserve a cut of the R/D pie in lieu of funding their own damn research is little more than a gimme, and actually perpetuates the technological slide the US has been on as the sum total of research goes down. It's not like engineering is projected as a hot field for the future according to the BLS. Maybe they should hire more engineers?
But if they want to make a good faith offering, they can start putting their MBA heads on pikes at all of their research campuses. Prove they are really serious about being at the forefront of technological development and not just some guy in a $5,000 suit asking for a handout.
It is the same stick conservatives are beaten with (and rightfully so) when they pander family values while being on their 5th marriage. Physician heal thy self.
I have a disdain for media that are that obvious in their message. The other aspect of technology is making things more efficient so there is less environmental impact.
But a nuanced story of societies making tough choices navigating immature tech with unknown long-term consequences is maybe a bit dry for a summer blockbuster.
As near every religion I can shake a stick at is, by degree, ridicule of human folly, can you name any religion that doesn't incorporate satire? And by what means do you intend to separate the satire aspect from the religious aspect? By what proportion makes one religious satire and the other satirical religion? "Would Jesus Wear a Rolex" is satire in the same breath that it is religious. And let's not forget Ray Stevens is inducted in the Christian Music Hall of Fame. Religion takes many forms.
One of the reason the Supreme Court has tread very lightly with regards to religious belief is purposely to avoid any inference of a state religion. When you start dictating what qualifies (keep in mind worship of Zeus is condoned in federal prisons), you set the stage for religious persecution.
As a side note: I'll pass judgement on any damn thing I please.
And by deciding what is and what isn't religion, we are a step closer to a state religion.
The judge could have used standards applied to other religions (must have a fairly consistent, established dogma; must not pose a hazard to the operation of the prison or prisoners, etc), but instead decided to plant his flag on satire and political stance, which conveniently ignores centuries of Christian political advocacy and the mutant strands of Christianity that appeared with the hippies in the 60s.
I mean Mormonism is an established religion. Snake handlers even get their day.
But to deny religious belief simply because he doesn't like where it originated from is begging for a Supreme Court ruling, and then the floodgates will really be opened.
There is the possibility that removing central government could allow a heretofore unknown or suppressed method of human social behavior to actually do a better job of regulation
Actually, it is already here.
What the cheerleaders for government omit is that at any given moment, most of the world operates under anarchy.
Right now, I do not have some government agent dictating what I should and should not do, and the world doesn't fall apart. People are doing illegal things en mass simply because government lacks the capability to enforce on that broad of a scale. It's anarchy out there.
People often confuse government with administration, and while often related, they are not the same thing. We do need administrators to ease the complexities of our social structure, but this absurd notion of government holding the line against the demon horde in our heads is overwrought.
Slashdot Mirror
I think your memory is a bit faulty. The 70s and 80s were the beneficiaries of the free speech movements of the 60s. If anything, they were less censored than even today (something like Wizards was a mere PG rating even with Nazi imagery, overt sexual innuendo, and violence).
And as someone who spent time at both 4chan and 8chan, there was honest to goodness free exchange of ideas where the trolls were mostly diffuse among the other conversations happening. The move towards censorship actually made matters worse, concentrating the extremist to point where no one else would bother to spend time there (congratulations! You've now inadvertently made a community).
And beyond that, there is a failure to engage even the most repugnant points of view, instead attempting to make gated communities of approved speech to where even the conversations here are mostly bland, typical, and boring.
Adding-
In politics, there are no perfect answers. It is a question of compromise, and plotting the what seems to be the best path towards ideals from the numerous paths available.
While the "libertarian" argument against BI seems to consist of mostly taxes are theft (unless they support things I support) and an over-reliance on the government, which leads to increased government power.
For BI, if everyone is essentially getting the same, that reduces government power, as they lose the authority to pick winners and losers from the public trust. Can't pander to certain groups for increased benefits (such is commonly done with the elderly). Can't promise any increases unless it goes to everyone. That is a very libertarian argument at reducing the influence of government (plus getting rid of entire agencies that oversee the various programs. You've just reduced the size of government tremendously).
With regards to taxation, while overall taxes will probably increase, since the bulk of taxes goes directly to the population, that leaves little room for government largesse in terms of subsidies, pet programs, and other attempts to curry favor. The money simply isn't there.
I invite libertarians to look carefully at cost/benefit of BI in terms of overall goals, and especially means to achieve those goals through other means (it's not like libertarianism has caught fire with the public at large). If there is a better way forward, I'd certainly like to hear it.
If it did, the courts would be guilty of cruel and unusual punishment (misdemeanors don't usually come with an indefinite jail term).
The whole thing is ludicrous as the state is essentially compelling you to offer up evidence against yourself. It's not even a question of evidence tampering, but merely a suspicion that the contents of the hard drive contain evidence, and the legal authority to make you say "uncle".
Perhaps the hard drives contain a list of people he's killed. Perhaps they contain records of gambling receipts. Perhaps it details every furry convention he's been to. Whatever. He has numerous reasons not to divulge to contents of the HDs which have nothing to do with the case, so the whole thing seems like a fishing expedition.
The fact that they are sitting on him instead of going forward with the case suggests the case is weak.
The police are in physical custody of the hard drives. The terms of the warrant are complete. Just because the contents contain a digital cypher instead of an analogue one, it seems we throw every other aspect of legal rulings out the window. They might as well claim he is the Zodiac Killer as well since he is refusing to offer the key to those messages as well.
Dude, you know the drill!
First you have to do a 5 paragraph screed about the evils of money in politics with subtle hints that the Koch Bros are in league with Satan (or big oil. Same difference really).
Then you do at least 7 posts of how Republicans are out to eat babies, rape your grandmother, and cheat at softball.
And then you mention Soros as a half-assed et tu and mention the CCX in passing before the popcorn starts.
You cannot text and keep your eyes on the road.
"The researchers, from the Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) found the average parent takes their eyes off the road for three minutes and 22 seconds during a 16-minute trip.
I know you've been working on your comprehension skills, but there is still room for improvement.
Oh, and the headline reads: Children more distracting than mobile phones.
Well then educate yourself:
http://monash.edu/news/show/ch...
because this has been plainly obvious for some time now, but of course in your infinite wisdom have chosen to ignore.
And you should work on your understanding of the word draconian and the idea of apt punishment.
As it is, I've already seen drinking and driving go from a reasonable justification to get impaired drivers off the road to an ever increasing escalation of moral signaling that hasn't noticeably reduced the number of drinking and driving accidents, but has been a fucking goldmine for concerned citizens to keep upping the ante with legal limits and punishments and government involvement. You'd think offering free taxi service to and from any bar would be cheaper than locking people up, and would actually reduce the number of incidences, but no, instead we get people puffing out their chests and demanding even more stringent laws when their first round has been an absolute failure. Explain to me again how making texting and driving a felony actually reduces the number of instances? You can't because it is an idiotic way to approach this after the fact, when you are better served looking at prevention through better driver training and licensing requirements.
Not to mention I don't see how texting and driving is more of a distraction than having some screaming toddler in the back, making the drive home after a horrendous double shift, or infotainment systems in cars. Shouldn't these be felonies too? Why so selective in your pretentious march to keep the roads safe?
Yes, we should make people ineligible for certain jobs and possibly take away their voting rights and a host of other penalties for something which, while dangerous, hasn't harmed anyone at the time.
Do you hear the madness that comes out of your mouth?
So there was a significant rise in people renting, without nearly as significant a rise in available rental units. So, again, huge surprise, rents went up.
Oh, so you do understand supply and demand.
Carry on.
If you are making an unsubstantiated claim that minimum rents follow welfare, then yes, pretty damn ignorant.
You might note that "median" by necessity also must include the "minimum" in its formulation, and especially for the 1980s onward when there was welfare reform and benefits decreased, and there was the S and L Crisis which tanked property values; yet rents still increased. Why? You mean to tell me that the upper bounds were sufficiently high enough to increase the median through a major banking crisis, even though the minimum should have fallen dramatically by your narrative?
Uh-huh.
You might travel a bit and see that there are several more ghost towns throughout than areas awaiting renewal. Properties abandoned by their owners, where even squatters fear to tread. It would seem collecting even some money is better than collecting no money, but if even welfare recipients turn their noses at them, what then?
In short, your explanations fall short of observed reality.
Really now? Has there been a 25% increase in welfare since the 1980s? Please show your work.
https://www.census.gov/hhes/ww...
So how do you account for the average increase if welfare sets the minimum rent?
By my estimation all rents are set by supply and demand. There is no minimum rent. Numerous buildings go vacant and become dilapidated because there isn't even enough interest for someone to live there as a caretaker or squatter, and prevent the building from being demolished. Not to mention all rents have to compete with sleeping under a bridge or jail at a minimum. Welfare has nothing to do with it.
What an ignorant argument.
More, I'm looking at how citizen juries help to reduce corruption. They tend to have limited functions, and mostly just do oversight to make sure nothing shady is taking place.
I actually like the idea of essentially no screening whatsoever.
It sets a society's priorities when the crazy guy in the street could possibly be a member of congress, and in its own way, complimentary to BI.
This is a feature, not a bug. I would anticipate several of the wealthy not being able to take a year off for service, which again diffuses power.
Again, in my fairy world of unicorn kisses, people would be paid whatever is the median income for a year's service.
Of course people are always free to decline, but at least for the poor, making the median wage for a year would be a step up, most others wouldn't notice a difference, but I can't fathom many CEOs serving.
So, the only logical conclusion is that you are an enemy of the state.
*sad but true*
Actually, this is a pretty easy fix as well.
Pegging it to GDP means it is self-correcting for most abuses. Changing the tax code to something like a Land Value Tax (completely voluntary for the most part ) eliminates most of the favor trading with the tax code (and eliminates tax havens as well) and simplifies collection.
And, if we're wishing for unicorns, creating a third house of congress that is chosen completely at random from each state (in my mind's eye, I see them as only being able to debate and vote on laws) keeps in check the power brokers.
Ideally, you should anticipate corruption and design your systems around that. Markets work better than central planning. Simple systems are easier to detect and correct abuse than complex ones, and diffusing political power keeps power abuses in check.
Misses the point.
The intent isn't to get pedophiles off the street, but effectively ban all porn. You had the same MO in the 80s with Judith Reisman claiming Playboy facilitated child abuse by having underage looking models, and shoots that simulated underage girls (because your standard 12 year old has 34DD breasts)..
I mean after this report why would anyone visit any porn site, knowing full well there was a possibility of child porn there unless that's what they were looking for? You can't even report it without an admission of a crime.
Even in the days before the internet, child porn stings were incredibly dubious (really, read the history. The vast majority of child porn was produced by the US government for sting operations), but any sense of due process is just covering for child molesters. Where there is smoke there must be fire.
The real problem is that while decency laws are localized, the web is not, and what may be perfectly legal in one jurisdiction is worthy of hanging in another. This sets the stage for The Great Firewall, and ultimately shutting down all porn sites, just in case.
Utah has the highest consumption rate of porn, and there really hasn't been a good explanation for it.
On the plus side, it's nice to see the religious right taking on the mantle of anti-porn crusaders again from feminist, as the you can only get so far with claims of misogyny.. Erototoxins are where its at.
Unfortunately for him, this discussion already took place in 1969 (snark), via the President's Commission on Obscenity and Pornography. Thus far, I haven't heard much in the way to contradict their findings.
And then there is that pesky free speech issue, which regardless of public health problems, the courts haven't seen fit to abridge.
I'll be the first to admit I'm dismayed at the prevalence of porn now, but simply asking people to use more discretion isn't nearly as headline grabbing as claiming porn is a health crisis.
Maybe he can look into why there is such a problem in his own state and get back to us?
The justification raised for harsh penalties for marijuana use (like the recent life sentence in Alabama) was that it was a "gateway" drug, and that use would lead to other "harder" drugs being used. So again, you'd expect an explosion in drug use in states that legalized.
Except that didn't happen, and drug use numbers before and after legalization remained about the same across the board for all drugs, and I have every reason to suspect that much like the gateway theory, the notion that hard drug use would spike after legalization is also erroneous.
And I could point to the effects of hard drugs, like the recent Johns Hopkins Psilocybin Research Project in which participants rated their experience as among the most significant in their lives, the study which stated use reduced anxiety over dying in hospice patients, and I can go on ad nauseam. Why are these things illegal again?
Current drug policy has been based on lies and misinformation, and I really have to wonder about the junkie stereotype if they are able to navigate the complexities of anonymous web use, accessing the dark web, and making use of bitcoin, especially when most law makers can't wrap their head around how these things operate.
The problem is you then perpetuate businesses using the public trust as their own slush fund while offering very little in return. The public gets raped twice- once from paying the actual taxes that corps.skiver, and again when the products are sold back to them as jobs move elsewhere.
It all seems a bit of economic brinkmanship, with corps. threatening to crash the party unless they get dibs on research dollars, and sucking that dry until the infrastructure crumbles and they move on to another market.
I'm actually okay with government R/D for BIG things like the Desertron which companies could never hope to fund privately (and where were the calls for increased R/D and more importantly tax dollars when that was being closed down? Fuckers!).
But this idea that corps. deserve a cut of the R/D pie in lieu of funding their own damn research is little more than a gimme, and actually perpetuates the technological slide the US has been on as the sum total of research goes down. It's not like engineering is projected as a hot field for the future according to the BLS. Maybe they should hire more engineers?
But if they want to make a good faith offering, they can start putting their MBA heads on pikes at all of their research campuses. Prove they are really serious about being at the forefront of technological development and not just some guy in a $5,000 suit asking for a handout.
Oh but it does.
It is the same stick conservatives are beaten with (and rightfully so) when they pander family values while being on their 5th marriage. Physician heal thy self.
I have a disdain for media that are that obvious in their message. The other aspect of technology is making things more efficient so there is less environmental impact.
But a nuanced story of societies making tough choices navigating immature tech with unknown long-term consequences is maybe a bit dry for a summer blockbuster.
As near every religion I can shake a stick at is, by degree, ridicule of human folly, can you name any religion that doesn't incorporate satire? And by what means do you intend to separate the satire aspect from the religious aspect? By what proportion makes one religious satire and the other satirical religion? "Would Jesus Wear a Rolex" is satire in the same breath that it is religious. And let's not forget Ray Stevens is inducted in the Christian Music Hall of Fame. Religion takes many forms.
One of the reason the Supreme Court has tread very lightly with regards to religious belief is purposely to avoid any inference of a state religion. When you start dictating what qualifies (keep in mind worship of Zeus is condoned in federal prisons), you set the stage for religious persecution.
As a side note: I'll pass judgement on any damn thing I please.
And by deciding what is and what isn't religion, we are a step closer to a state religion.
The judge could have used standards applied to other religions (must have a fairly consistent, established dogma; must not pose a hazard to the operation of the prison or prisoners, etc), but instead decided to plant his flag on satire and political stance, which conveniently ignores centuries of Christian political advocacy and the mutant strands of Christianity that appeared with the hippies in the 60s.
I mean Mormonism is an established religion. Snake handlers even get their day.
But to deny religious belief simply because he doesn't like where it originated from is begging for a Supreme Court ruling, and then the floodgates will really be opened.
There is the possibility that removing central government could allow a heretofore unknown or suppressed method of human social behavior to actually do a better job of regulation
Actually, it is already here.
What the cheerleaders for government omit is that at any given moment, most of the world operates under anarchy.
Right now, I do not have some government agent dictating what I should and should not do, and the world doesn't fall apart. People are doing illegal things en mass simply because government lacks the capability to enforce on that broad of a scale. It's anarchy out there.
People often confuse government with administration, and while often related, they are not the same thing. We do need administrators to ease the complexities of our social structure, but this absurd notion of government holding the line against the demon horde in our heads is overwrought.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB...
http://www.thecrimereport.org/...
Moneyshot- "Ninety-seven percent of federal criminal prosecutions are resolved by plea bargain. In state courts the numbers are comparable."
And quid pro quo
Parallel construction [wikipedia.org] is an orthogonal (unrelated) problem
[citation needed]
but it has legitimate purposes too
[citation needed]
but a person innocent of substantial wrongdoing is yet to be convicted because of it
[citation needed]
I mean fair is fair, right?
but a person innocent of substantial wrongdoing is yet to be convicted because of it.
Kinda hard to do when the prosecution ends up charge stacking until 90% of defendants cop a plea.
So to be clear, enhanced interrogation can be abused to obtain information dishonestly, but it has legitimate purposes too.
I want to know how much gray is tolerated with procedure as long as it gets results.