You should try to understand the particulars that I only briefly mention in my post before replying. I covered the issue in your first parapragh, with the same conclusion that you made. I just didn't state it in so many words. If you were familiar with the Constitution, or paid attention to my post, you would have understood that.
You are correct that those states could not trade those items. I did not state anything that would run counter to that conclusion. Much the opposite. However, those states laws do not apply to interstate commerce (eg, things outside the specific state in question) Your example applies to things outside any one state. Thus, the laws governing are of federal jurisdiction, and mutually exclusive to the intent of the state law legalizing the item. The state law applies to the state. The federal law applies between the states, and to federal holdings.
I never claimed the federal government was secondary in matters of interstate commerce. I also never claimed that the federal government was above using blackmail and extortion to go about business as usual. That is the norm, not the exception. That's how the federal government gets around state law, by playing to political weakness.
As to one of your last references, you clarify more clearly the differences in the two legal arenas (state and federal): "with jurisdiction over that transaction"
It's the transaction, nothing more. No transaction, no jurisdiction. There's a lot of room in the law for issues that don't involve transactions.
Please, attempt to fully understand the references I make before replying. This reply basically restated more fully a point I already made.
So which taxes? And how much do you have to pay to be able to vote? These questions would be decided by those elected. Eventually, it would mean that the government decides exactly who is able to vote. You know who that would end up being? Those who could pay for the privilege (anything conditional is not a right).
I'd rather get rid of taxes and return the government to the functions that it handled right after it was founded. No national bank, no social programs, no retirement funding for elected or appointed officials, no social security, no income tax, etc.
Anyway, shareholders only pay once, not continually.
Or, if you actually read it in common English, it means that Federal laws that don't fall within the guidlines as set forth in the Constitution apply only to areas where there is no state government, ie the District, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.
Federal and state law are almost entirely mutually exclusive. Not necessarily in practice, but in Constitutional matters, that's the spirit. They have legitimate regulatory powers over things closely related to the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8, but not over anything else. (with the exception of treason and two other crimes that I can't immediately recall) States have no legitimate regulatory power over any of the functions outlined in Article I, Section 8, with a couple possible exceptions.
And no, the 10th amendment isn't explicit on sovereignty, but you have to be able to connect the dots. The states derive their power from the people. The Federal government derives its power from the states and the people. That makes the states slightly higher on the food chain, but not much.
The Constitution is a barrier, a limiting device that constrains governmental power (in theory). It delegates power to the Federal government. It then states that any power not delegated is reserved to those higher on the food chain. That means that Party 1 (the government) can do A, B, and C. Party 2 (states) can do everything Party 3 tells them they can, except A, B, C, and anything the Constitution expressly forbids them from doing. Party 3 can do anything they damned well feel like except A, B, C, and what they allow Party 2 to do.
Because the President says it's good! And disagreeing with the President at a time like this is simply unpatriotic! How dare you try to tear down this great nation with your treasonous statements! </sarcasm>
Well, nobody, especially because the text of it was not made available to members of Congress until a couple hours before the vote. I can read damned fast, and I couldn't pack that document away with in a couple hours with any sort of meaningful analysis. I'd imagine most of our members of Congress, being the fat lazy sloths that they are, would take significantly longer (or have a staffer do it, as is tradition.)
Yes, they could. The Feds can also prosecute you for drug offenses when it used to take a Constitutional amendment to prevent people from imbibing what they wished.
Happy Anti-Independence Day. America now suffers from within the problems that its founders sought to free themselves of.
Actually, that should read "and using the term 'deregulation' to describe a regulatory scheme doomed to failure in order to undermine any further public interest in the potential viability of deregulated systems."
Read the decision. If you did, your comment is even more asinine. It is no more censorship in this aim than a library choosing to not carry Penthouse Magazine.
I like the Federal Government less than most people, but when you willingly offer yourself up as a slave you are beholden to the whims of your master. Libraries can easily exempt themselves from this law. All they have to do is operate without Federal involvement. These stipulations only apply to libraries who accept the Federal Government's blood money.
As far as "doing it all the time," it depends on how you look at it. Past precedence actually is changed "all the time," but rarely radically. It has nothing to do with evidence, as the Supreme Court tests the law, not the facts, of any given case. It has everything to do with the construction of the Court at the time. The precedents that are overturned or modified generally tend to be old, and also generally tend not to be hot-button issues, which is why you hear almost nothing about 90% of the cases that go in front of the Supreme Court.
They haven't heard it again because there won't be any other serious attempts to revisit the decision until there are a majority of conservative justices sitting. Again, nothing to do with evidence.
But then who would pay to send the children of people who don't own property to school? Certainly not the parents. The poor things, we shouldn't burden them with that. So we'll burden you! You must pay taxes on your land, otherwise you're a drain on society sitting there minding your own business and supporting your family with your own hard work.
We can't allow you to live unfettered, giving your family an example of good work ethic and the kind of supportive base that will allow them to nurture their talents. That kind of thinking doesn't belong in a free^H^H^H^Hsocialist society.
I'm not particularly trusting of private companies either, but the nice thing about dealing with private companies is that there is no compulsion to deal with them. Unless you want to go through a lot of hassle, try working without involving the IRS, or exiting or re-entering the country without Customs or the State Department.
Whenever you do things that involve a government entity, you're entering a measure of coercion into the equation. You can't get there from here without jumping through their hoops. You jump improperly, or try to avoid the hoops, you can land in some serious hot water. That's why, even without trusting private entities, I'd much prefer to do business with them. I can choose to walk away and do business with someone else if I don't like the way they deal, or I can start a competing business, and do things completely my way.
That's why privacy policies and independant certifications companies play an important role in a free market environment. If you truly think that a carrier is violating your privacy, move to another carrier. Just like you move your email to a secure provider if their security and privacy policies don't cut it for you. When there is a demand for secure transactions of any sort, there will become available a supply. That's simple economic law.
I actually wouldn't classify this as either right or left-wing politics. Both tend to support it because it is politically dangerous to oppose the largest semi-private (and yes, the Post Office is semi-private, much like the Federal Reserve Bank and Amtrak) corporation in the country.
1) I'm not a Republican, Republicans often like regulation that has nothing to do with the legitimate functions of government ie protection of individual rights.
2) fasâcism n.1. (sometimes cap.)
a totalitarian governmental system led by a dictator and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism, militarism, and often racism.
Were this an accurate description of me, I would prefer governmental monopolies. It should be obvious that I don't. None of the other identifiers fit, either.
3) moânopâoâly n., pl. -lies
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service that makes possible the manipulation of prices.
2. the exclusive possession or control of something.
3. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
4. a company or group that has such control.
5. the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.
4) US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 7: [The Congress shall have Power] To establish Post Offices and post Roads.
5) Section 8 pertains to powers granted specifically and solely to Congress. In other words, nobody but those specified by Congress can engage in postal business. The USPS is the only entity specified by Congress to engage in postal business.
6) The USPS employs inspectors to covertly monitor private parcel companies, fining them when certain classes (mostly letters) of mail are found to be delivered privately.
8) I don't particularly care how bad other nations are. I'm not going to stop trying to make things better just because there are worse places. That's an attitude for pessimists or people looking for excuses to stick with the status quo.
Perhaps you'd like to ground your reasons in fact as detailed as I've provided, if you wish to defend your claims further, that is. You should try actually looking at the background details, especially the laws that govern mail. Try starting with the United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 83. It will provide information that you'll have trouble refuting, unless you happen to be a Senator or Congresscritter with sizable political clout. Well, you could do it if you control a majority of the Postal Commission, or the Justice Department. 18 USC Part I Chapter 83 Section 1696 - Private express for letters and packets
(a) Whoever establishes any private express for the conveyance of letters or packets, or in any manner causes or provides for the conveyance of the same by regular trips or at stated periods over any post route which is or may be established by law, or from any city, town, or place to any other city, town, or place, between which the mail is regularly carried, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
This section shall not prohibit any person from receiving and delivering to the nearest post office, postal car, or other authorized depository for mail matter any mail matter properly stamped.
(b) Whoever transmits by private express or other unlawful means, or delivers to any agent thereof, or deposits at any appointed place, for the purpose of being so transmitted any letter or packet, shall be fined under this title.
(c) This chapter shall not prohibit the conveyance or transmission of letters or packets by private hands without compensation, or by special messenger employed for the particular occasion only. Whenever more than twenty-five such letters or packets are conveyed or transmitted by such special messenger, the requirements of section 601 of tit
Well, taking into account assumptions and dreaming, perfect sense, though completely unrealistic. Have you ever tried navigating a bureacracy to get a problem solved? Ever needed to make a claim to the Postal Service for a lost money order, or dispute a ruling with the SSA, or fix a problem that went in the IRS' favor? Bureaucracies are nothing if not slow and inefficient for most functions.
Umm, there are tens of thousands of people in the US without access to food or bathing supplies, not to mention decent shelter. Never been to a city of any size and paid attention, have you?
Jobs skimmed off by nationalizing? Normally I don't stoop to trolling questions, but I have to: are you on crack?
Nationalizing anything increases jobs. That's not a good thing, because that money comes out of everyones' pockets. It's bad because it financially injures people who make no use of nor derive any other benefit from the system. (and for those inclined, spare me the trickle-down effect speeches) In addition, the bureaucracy necessary to support it drains more money in manpower and inneficiency than a comparable private outfit.
Otherwise, I agree with much of your assessments, though the end-user argument leaves a bit to be desired. After all, you're not privy to the cost-benefit analysis.:)
Regulation, the wicked stepmother of invention...:)
Unfortunately, much like any other basically useful political term, "capitalis*" has been bastardized by propagandists and morons. Any decent capitalist would line up to find ways to cut costs for providing or receiving services, as more services lead to more opportunities to capitalize. That doesn't mean forcing people to pay throught coercion (government) for things that have nothing to with protecting rights (the only legitimate function of government).
Slashdot Mirror
You should try to understand the particulars that I only briefly mention in my post before replying. I covered the issue in your first parapragh, with the same conclusion that you made. I just didn't state it in so many words. If you were familiar with the Constitution, or paid attention to my post, you would have understood that.
You are correct that those states could not trade those items. I did not state anything that would run counter to that conclusion. Much the opposite. However, those states laws do not apply to interstate commerce (eg, things outside the specific state in question) Your example applies to things outside any one state. Thus, the laws governing are of federal jurisdiction, and mutually exclusive to the intent of the state law legalizing the item. The state law applies to the state. The federal law applies between the states, and to federal holdings.
I never claimed the federal government was secondary in matters of interstate commerce. I also never claimed that the federal government was above using blackmail and extortion to go about business as usual. That is the norm, not the exception. That's how the federal government gets around state law, by playing to political weakness.
As to one of your last references, you clarify more clearly the differences in the two legal arenas (state and federal):
"with jurisdiction over that transaction"
It's the transaction, nothing more. No transaction, no jurisdiction. There's a lot of room in the law for issues that don't involve transactions.
Please, attempt to fully understand the references I make before replying. This reply basically restated more fully a point I already made.
So which taxes? And how much do you have to pay to be able to vote? These questions would be decided by those elected. Eventually, it would mean that the government decides exactly who is able to vote. You know who that would end up being? Those who could pay for the privilege (anything conditional is not a right).
I'd rather get rid of taxes and return the government to the functions that it handled right after it was founded. No national bank, no social programs, no retirement funding for elected or appointed officials, no social security, no income tax, etc.
Anyway, shareholders only pay once, not continually.
Or, if you actually read it in common English, it means that Federal laws that don't fall within the guidlines as set forth in the Constitution apply only to areas where there is no state government, ie the District, Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.
Federal and state law are almost entirely mutually exclusive. Not necessarily in practice, but in Constitutional matters, that's the spirit. They have legitimate regulatory powers over things closely related to the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8, but not over anything else. (with the exception of treason and two other crimes that I can't immediately recall) States have no legitimate regulatory power over any of the functions outlined in Article I, Section 8, with a couple possible exceptions.
And no, the 10th amendment isn't explicit on sovereignty, but you have to be able to connect the dots. The states derive their power from the people. The Federal government derives its power from the states and the people. That makes the states slightly higher on the food chain, but not much.
The Constitution is a barrier, a limiting device that constrains governmental power (in theory). It delegates power to the Federal government. It then states that any power not delegated is reserved to those higher on the food chain. That means that Party 1 (the government) can do A, B, and C. Party 2 (states) can do everything Party 3 tells them they can, except A, B, C, and anything the Constitution expressly forbids them from doing. Party 3 can do anything they damned well feel like except A, B, C, and what they allow Party 2 to do.
Because the President says it's good! And disagreeing with the President at a time like this is simply unpatriotic! How dare you try to tear down this great nation with your treasonous statements!
</sarcasm>
Horrible, absolutely horrible! How could you taint this issue with petty things like facts?
</sarcasm>
The State then borrows the money the Federal Reserve prints.
What I'd like to see is people demand gold or silver as payment from states, since that is specifically required of them in the Constitution...
Amen to that!
Well, nobody, especially because the text of it was not made available to members of Congress until a couple hours before the vote. I can read damned fast, and I couldn't pack that document away with in a couple hours with any sort of meaningful analysis. I'd imagine most of our members of Congress, being the fat lazy sloths that they are, would take significantly longer (or have a staffer do it, as is tradition.)
Yes, they could. The Feds can also prosecute you for drug offenses when it used to take a Constitutional amendment to prevent people from imbibing what they wished.
Happy Anti-Independence Day. America now suffers from within the problems that its founders sought to free themselves of.
Actually, that should read "and using the term 'deregulation' to describe a regulatory scheme doomed to failure in order to undermine any further public interest in the potential viability of deregulated systems."
There was never any deregulation, only sophistry.
Read the decision. If you did, your comment is even more asinine. It is no more censorship in this aim than a library choosing to not carry Penthouse Magazine.
I like the Federal Government less than most people, but when you willingly offer yourself up as a slave you are beholden to the whims of your master. Libraries can easily exempt themselves from this law. All they have to do is operate without Federal involvement. These stipulations only apply to libraries who accept the Federal Government's blood money.
In a similar strain, if your web-café is privately run, you can do anything you damn well please. It's not an educational or research institution accepting money to further education or research. Hence, the government cannot legitimately dictate what you can and cannot make available (within the confines of the law).
As far as "doing it all the time," it depends on how you look at it. Past precedence actually is changed "all the time," but rarely radically. It has nothing to do with evidence, as the Supreme Court tests the law, not the facts, of any given case. It has everything to do with the construction of the Court at the time. The precedents that are overturned or modified generally tend to be old, and also generally tend not to be hot-button issues, which is why you hear almost nothing about 90% of the cases that go in front of the Supreme Court.
They haven't heard it again because there won't be any other serious attempts to revisit the decision until there are a majority of conservative justices sitting. Again, nothing to do with evidence.
But then who would pay to send the children of people who don't own property to school? Certainly not the parents. The poor things, we shouldn't burden them with that. So we'll burden you! You must pay taxes on your land, otherwise you're a drain on society sitting there minding your own business and supporting your family with your own hard work.
We can't allow you to live unfettered, giving your family an example of good work ethic and the kind of supportive base that will allow them to nurture their talents. That kind of thinking doesn't belong in a free^H^H^H^Hsocialist society.
</sarcasm>
Seriously though, I'm right there with you.
Sorry if I got a little testy... :)
I'm not particularly trusting of private companies either, but the nice thing about dealing with private companies is that there is no compulsion to deal with them. Unless you want to go through a lot of hassle, try working without involving the IRS, or exiting or re-entering the country without Customs or the State Department.
Whenever you do things that involve a government entity, you're entering a measure of coercion into the equation. You can't get there from here without jumping through their hoops. You jump improperly, or try to avoid the hoops, you can land in some serious hot water. That's why, even without trusting private entities, I'd much prefer to do business with them. I can choose to walk away and do business with someone else if I don't like the way they deal, or I can start a competing business, and do things completely my way.
That's why privacy policies and independant certifications companies play an important role in a free market environment. If you truly think that a carrier is violating your privacy, move to another carrier. Just like you move your email to a secure provider if their security and privacy policies don't cut it for you. When there is a demand for secure transactions of any sort, there will become available a supply. That's simple economic law.
4th amendment protections do apply, when the person asking is a government official. If the ISP rolls over against their own policy, you use the legal recourse already in place for broken contracts: bring suit. I know that may sound like a cliché in this day and age of frivolous lawsuits, but that is what contract law is all about. The same applies to violations of contract involving purely private parties. But you get what you pay for, or do research for. Those who need or want increased privacy will pay for it with an investment of time and/or money. Now for the real cliché: Don't care, don't get none. But that's as it should be.
I actually wouldn't classify this as either right or left-wing politics. Both tend to support it because it is politically dangerous to oppose the largest semi-private (and yes, the Post Office is semi-private, much like the Federal Reserve Bank and Amtrak) corporation in the country.
And you call me a troll...
A couple things:
1) I'm not a Republican, Republicans often like regulation that has nothing to do with the legitimate functions of government ie protection of individual rights.
2) fasâcism n.1. (sometimes cap.)
a totalitarian governmental system led by a dictator and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism, militarism, and often racism.
Were this an accurate description of me, I would prefer governmental monopolies. It should be obvious that I don't. None of the other identifiers fit, either.
3) moânopâoâly n., pl. -lies
1. exclusive control of a commodity or service that makes possible the manipulation of prices.
2. the exclusive possession or control of something.
3. something that is the subject of such control, as a commodity or service.
4. a company or group that has such control.
5. the market condition that exists when there is only one seller.
4) US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 7: [The Congress shall have Power] To establish Post Offices and post Roads.
5) Section 8 pertains to powers granted specifically and solely to Congress. In other words, nobody but those specified by Congress can engage in postal business. The USPS is the only entity specified by Congress to engage in postal business.
6) The USPS employs inspectors to covertly monitor private parcel companies, fining them when certain classes (mostly letters) of mail are found to be delivered privately.
7) More information from the Government Accounting Office, here, here
8) I don't particularly care how bad other nations are. I'm not going to stop trying to make things better just because there are worse places. That's an attitude for pessimists or people looking for excuses to stick with the status quo.
Perhaps you'd like to ground your reasons in fact as detailed as I've provided, if you wish to defend your claims further, that is. You should try actually looking at the background details, especially the laws that govern mail. Try starting with the United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 83. It will provide information that you'll have trouble refuting, unless you happen to be a Senator or Congresscritter with sizable political clout. Well, you could do it if you control a majority of the Postal Commission, or the Justice Department.
18 USC Part I Chapter 83 Section 1696 - Private express for letters and packets
(a) Whoever establishes any private express for the conveyance of letters or packets, or in any manner causes or provides for the conveyance of the same by regular trips or at stated periods over any post route which is or may be established by law, or from any city, town, or place to any other city, town, or place, between which the mail is regularly carried, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
This section shall not prohibit any person from receiving and delivering to the nearest post office, postal car, or other authorized depository for mail matter any mail matter properly stamped.
(b) Whoever transmits by private express or other unlawful means, or delivers to any agent thereof, or deposits at any appointed place, for the purpose of being so transmitted any letter or packet, shall be fined under this title.
(c) This chapter shall not prohibit the conveyance or transmission of letters or packets by private hands without compensation, or by special messenger employed for the particular occasion only. Whenever more than twenty-five such letters or packets are conveyed or transmitted by such special messenger, the requirements of section 601 of tit
Yeah, they count. But then, you've obviously never been at rock bottom, or you wouldn't be so vociferous in your claims that it doesn't exist.
Well, taking into account assumptions and dreaming, perfect sense, though completely unrealistic. Have you ever tried navigating a bureacracy to get a problem solved? Ever needed to make a claim to the Postal Service for a lost money order, or dispute a ruling with the SSA, or fix a problem that went in the IRS' favor? Bureaucracies are nothing if not slow and inefficient for most functions.
You want every company position to be a national election? Damn, we'd have no time to do anything but vote. :)
Umm, there are tens of thousands of people in the US without access to food or bathing supplies, not to mention decent shelter. Never been to a city of any size and paid attention, have you?
No.
Jobs skimmed off by nationalizing? Normally I don't stoop to trolling questions, but I have to: are you on crack?
:)
Nationalizing anything increases jobs. That's not a good thing, because that money comes out of everyones' pockets. It's bad because it financially injures people who make no use of nor derive any other benefit from the system. (and for those inclined, spare me the trickle-down effect speeches) In addition, the bureaucracy necessary to support it drains more money in manpower and inneficiency than a comparable private outfit.
Otherwise, I agree with much of your assessments, though the end-user argument leaves a bit to be desired. After all, you're not privy to the cost-benefit analysis.
Well, except for the fact that the artificially high price of stamps due to a legal monopoly on letter carrying constitutes a type of tax.
Bravo, someone who can read and post while still having (his/her) brain engaged! You deserve a medal. :)
Sounds remarkably like Freenet, but I'd hope it worked faster and more reliably. :)
Regulation, the wicked stepmother of invention... :)
Unfortunately, much like any other basically useful political term, "capitalis*" has been bastardized by propagandists and morons. Any decent capitalist would line up to find ways to cut costs for providing or receiving services, as more services lead to more opportunities to capitalize. That doesn't mean forcing people to pay throught coercion (government) for things that have nothing to with protecting rights (the only legitimate function of government).