Did a little looking because I felt a bit sheepish after your comment. Turns out you should do a bit more reading. It was the Nai Weapons Law of 1938 which expanded upon a previous national registration law. It was this national registry that was used to find people that the Nazis wanted to disarm. It was also used to ban whatever was deemed necessary by the Nazi officials. So it goes both ways. The people gave up enough power for the Nazis to take the rest.
It is true that I do not know the specifics of this portion of the events that led up to the Holocaust. I used the name that I did because it identified the event that actually happened. My point was that the German people gave up their rights willingly, through clever manipulation of words. Yes, it was governmental action that took them, similar in form to what is slowly happening in the States today. So while it might not have been a gun control act in name, that's what it was in spirit. The Nazi-controlled government first completed mandatory registration, and then they disarmed the populace, all through power given to them by the people of Germany.
Read some history before you jerk your knee. He's talking about what led up to the Holocaust, being the German Gun Control Act that disarmed the population, so that the Holocaust could take place.
I can't help but laugh at your argument. You think we live in a polite, civilized society? What rock have you been living under? If there's gun control, do you really think that someone who wants to use a gun to commit crime will care one little bit about the law? No, but the people who follow the law won't, so the criminals have it really easy. Anyway, the government comes down on gun-owners routinely in the US. It's just not routinely publicized.
Most gun owners aren't super macho gungho survivalist. Most are your average person, which is to say, anyone you might meet on the street. There are a couple common strains that link gun owners, but the above is by no means one of them. I don't own any firearms either, but I completely support the right to do so, as well as any other arms (I do carry a combat folder, which, ironically, is illegal many places). I live in a town where 90% of the populace has some sort of firearm or other, mostly due to hunting. Incidently, this area has a nearly zero incidence of burglary in occupied houses. The rate of gun deaths is almost nearly zero. This is evidence enough for me that a heavily armed populace is not automatically a bad thing.
And you stereotype him, because you say that he is a troll for mentioning the Holocaust. Tell me, did you ever consider why he did, in the context of his statement? No, obviously you didn't, because it fits perfectly. Hitler became as powerful as he was because he was successful in convincing the people of Germany to voluntarily give up their arms. He convinced them that their government could and would protect them. And why is it an insult to compare how the Holocaust started to something that looks nearly identical? (I'm not saying that's what will happen here, but the issues are remarkably similar.) It's used to stir people up, to get them to think about what's going on, for the sole purpose of making sure that the events do not turn out the way they did in the Holocaust. Just because you think it can't happen again doesn't mean jack. You are probably not one of the people who would work for it to happen actively, but your non-committal attitude is more than a blessing for those who wish to consolidate their power, as you're one less person to oppose tyranny. Tyrants love people who don't care. They're the last to be sold as slaves, but they're the easiest, because they damn themselves with their own attitudes.
This is exactly the point that many are missing here. Complete gun control is but the beginning. He made extraordinay promises, and said he would accomplish them if he was granted extraordinary powers. Thus, the German peoples gave up their Republic. Hitler led Germany out of the economic depression that it was in. He became more popular, and his power grew. He instituted more rules and regulations "for the good of the people." This is why you should laugh at the term "the good of the people," or "the common good." There is no such thing. The federal government was designed to do very limited things. Protect the States from outside forces. Coin money. Mediate interstate disputes. That's about it. It is not supposed to be socialist. There should be no government welfare, medicine, or any other socialistic enterprise, but we do, because it's for "the common good."
I'd say that if you really think you need handguns in the US, to protect you against the government, then your government is fundamentally flawed already.
This is one of the undercurrents of the government intrusion arguments here. Many people feel that the federal government of these united States is fundamentally flawed. Unfortunately, those who call themselves "government agents" tend to use force when they don't get their way. If you attempt to resist their force, they call more of their friends to beat you down. That's because people who thrive on control gravitate toward government jobs, and use their power in a concerted manner to get more power. There is your fundamental flaw.
It's really not about you having the gun because you plan on killing someone, but merely because it might become necessary. You own it because there are people out there who have no problem killing you. Therefore, if you, and everyone else out there, are armed, the criminal is going to have to seriously rethink his vocation. After all, they like to target the homes of people who don't own guns, because then they have less of a chance of being shot. You don't own guns because you're violent, you own them because there are other people out there who are violent.
Actually, that's not quite the case. Federal troops held all of the major cities in the south under martial law several years after the end of aggressions was declared. The southern legislatures wouldn't ratify the 13th and 14th amendments, so the northern-controlled Congress declared military rule in the southern states that wouldn't comply. The legislatures were held invalid. The State Constitutions were scrapped, and rewritten, and then sent to Congress for approval. (Since when does a state need approval from Congress to change its Constitution? Never.) Once the new legislatures were installed, they immediately voted yes to the new amendments, and the federal troops left. But history is written by the victors, and most people never actually learn what really happened after the Uncivil War. (Note, I'm not condoning slavery.)
It looks like you find striving for liberty to be something objectionable. A heavily-armed population is a much more peaceful population, contrary to what the terrorcrats would have you think. The places with the highest crime rates have the strictest gun control, ala NYC and DC. Those with the lowest have the highest percentages of gun ownership, ala the city I live in where you see a loaded rifle rack in the rear window of 90% of the trucks. If you're a criminal in a city where 90% of the people are armed, who are you really gonna mug? Yeah, nobody. You're gonna move to a nice, safe criminal haven, with strict gun laws, because unlike all the "law-abiding citizens," you're more than happy to get an unregistered firearm, and carry it in the commission of a crime. So much for the statist gun-control ideas. If you're into gun control, you're generally either a) uninformed, or b) secretly (or even overtly) yearn to control other people.
It's only unconsitutional if the Supreme Court says it is, and since they've upheld it, it's not. That's the easy way around the Constitution, stacking the Supreme court with partisan, police-loving lawyers.
There are numerous seizure laws that don't even require property to be returned if the victim of the seizure is found innocent, most often dealing with drug-related charges. In theory, you're innocent until proven guilty. However, in practice, you're considered guilty until proven innocent, and even then you'll quite possibly never get your property back.
They'd uphold it if the company could actually prove you were doing something that broke the TOS. Good luck for them to try and get evidence of you running a proxy to filter the ads.
Similar to what I do. With my Matrox card, I can double the vertical space on my desktop. Then I place all annoyances at the very bottom, and use as normal. Just don't maximize anything.;)
The "Internet" is not an natural/juristic entity, and does not represent any natural/juristic entities. Thus, using it in such a manner cannot in any way constitute slander or libel. Who is going to sue claiming that they were directly defamed by the statement? Nobody. It could only constitute slander or libel in the most broad and indirect sense, and would be laughed out of the courtroom.
< offtopic> Yet another small correction. You're both kind of correct, because while the word "janus" means doorway or new beginning, January is named for Janus, the Roman god of doorways and new beginnings. I'll quit nitpicking.:) </offtopic>
I haven't actually bothered to look up the exact code, so I may be way off base, but I believe that the USPS is a monopoly by law. It sticks in my head that some time during the early 19th century there was a small, cheap, super-efficient courier company that ran mail between New York and Boston, and that they were shut down by a Congressional bill because they were doing more business than the USPS. Again, completely unsubstantiated because I'm feeling lazy tonight, so take it with a bottle of salt. If you really want to know, get diggin'.:)
btw, a complete list of ZIP codes came on the BeOS R3 CD, never checked the others though.
Major misinterpretation. Did I anywhere say that you espoused the belief that popular opinion changed the government? It actually does to an extent, but that's neither here nor there. What I was comparing the example of Galileo and popular opinion to was what we have purportedly been talking about the entire time: the semantics involved between "republic" and "democracy." You were speaking of the popular opinion as relates to what the government is called, not what the government is. Nobody has mentioned anything about what the gov't is, so isn't it a little pointless to throw that in here now?
I again relate you to various countries calling themselves that which they are not. It might be colloquially understood and correct, but it doesn't translate correctly to that which is understood anywhere else. If people started calling the US an oligarchy, the definition would change and be understood locally, butn the rest of the world would know that the US was a bunch of quacks. (Not saying they don't think so already.;)
Anyway, it is still legally considered a republican government. (On a side note, I was looking at a case on FindLaw and noticed for the first time that they have a searchable online legal dictionary. On a lark, I put in "republic," and it spit out your latest def. of democracy verbatim.) Then there's the reference to republican gov't in the Constitution, still generally considered to be accurate legally. *shrug*
As for a republic not always being a democracy, I agree. A republic is always in the form of elected respresentation. A democracy is not always so. I've held that the entire time, so it is an irrelevant point.
I did not wrongly assume you were uneducated. I did not assume you were uneducated. I was not even directly speaking to, of, or about you. I was addressing a point regarding the usage of the word democracy. It has been molded over time into a political device used to instill nationalistic pride/superiority in those it's used on, it is consistently used as a large, blunt instrument to say, "we're better because we're democratic. That's the American Way." You can disagree, but it's true. You used it to help justify the actions of the Seattle police, and the laws they were enforcing, by invoking nationalism. Anyway, just because someone is educated does not mean they actually think about their motivation in speaking the way that they do. A large portion of those who use the term do so because of social indoctrination. They never bother to learn history. You just happened to be one person that used it, and I used that opportunity to express my agitation on the issue.
I would be surprised if you had delved into this subject before I brought it up, but anything's possible. Since you unequivocally pronounced me wrong in your first reply, instead of bringing up immediately regarding historical relevance what you brought up later, it stands to reason that you did not, in fact, "look it up" before the fact. Again, it's possible that you did, but you approached your argument from the wrong perspective if you did.
Another statement you claim for me that I never made. I said nothing about the definition of democracy not allowing for representational democracy. I merely said that "republic" was the more technically correct term (both from a legal and a historical standpoint, though I did not make that point then.) Basically, we were arguing at, and not debating with, one another. You with your popular linguistics, and me with my technical. There is a place for both, but again, I dislike "democracy" for its nationalistic connotations, so I opt for "republic," which is much more individualistic than the mob-rule "democracy."
In closing, you claim to offer two bits of advice. Like many who offer their advice, I counter with the statement, "You should consider following your own advice first, before dispensing it to others." You say I have put on airs. Are you not just as guilty? I happen to like debating semantics. If you think I have acted superior, that is something you have to deal with. I merely argue what I believe to be true. You say I have an edge to my writing, while you yourself started off with a long, pointed response, ostensibly in attempt to crush my feeble statement regarding word usage, as you stated with much superiority, "You have no inkling as to my education." (Note, that is as close an attempt to an exact quote as I'm going to get, but the spirit is there.) I will admit that my choice of words in my original post could likely have been taken as a direct insult, but they were not intended to be. You chose to respond in a very edged manner, which, even though I instigated it, was not necessary. I am not attempting to excuse what you may consider to be a continuing edge to my posts, but this is the way I write. I will apologize for my first post, but for none of the rest, unless I have truly made a direct statement about you that is unequivocally wrong. I don't believe that has happened as yet. Finally, you say that I should make an argument for why "republic" is better than "democracy." I've already said several things about each. Democracy as it is used today is very much a political construct that has been molded to achieve a certain effect in the listener when it is used. It is statist and nationalistic, both of which I find abhorrent. It promotes the "people" over the rights of the individual. It's about "us" and "we" over "and each together." It justifies all the laws in this country today, because they're "democratic, so they can't be unjust." Semantics are everything, my friend. Just ask your neighborhood lawyer. And if you don't think so, who do you think is running this country? That's right, the lawyers. And what do lawyers like to do? Right, confuse the issue with legal words where each is explicitly defined and put together with other legal words, which are combined in double-speak. Yes, semantics are everything, especially when you're speaking of an issue like the above article which involves police, the law, and politics.
A Republican gov't is, and only is, where eligible voters elect representatives to positions in gov't. Nothing more, nothing less. Is that not the theoretical system in place today?
You're right that in a democracy a law could not stand in defiance of the people. The only difference would be if the people ruled directly, which, in this country, they don't. Therefore, that distinction is a moot point.
There is no room for any democracy other than that specifically defined under "republic," unless the Constitution is removed. A pure democracy is essentially anarchy. (I don't use that term in the sense of utter chaos that many (most) people envision as anarchy.)
This debate is stemming solely from a semantic argument, since our points are essentially the same. However, my sole disagreement is your contention that "republican govt" is not based on sovereign power retained by the people over the govt. The heart of a Republican government is that it is elected by the voters of the country that it serves. The government of the USA is elected (short the judicial) by the voters of this country. In a democracy, there are no voting qualifications. Remember, women were not always allowed to vote in this country, and blacks prior to that. That's not a democracy, because there are restrictions on voting. In local land tax matters, only landowners get to vote in most localities. That is because of voting qualifications. In a democracy, everyone who lived in the locality could vote on the matter. Basically, the only time "democracy" qualifies to describe this country, is when "republic" is a more narrow and accurate description.
"My" Libertarian doctrine cannot argue that people have the right to do what? Make fair and equal laws? That sentence does not make a clear reference to that which precedes it. As for your views on Libertarians, it seems you haven't done your homework. Most Libertarians would prefer to see as few laws on the books as possible. No laws against anything that is not a violation of someone else's rights. Like I put in a previous post, if you'd like to see a pretty good Libertarian viewon the law, read the Texas Constituntion 2000. Everyone's likely to disagree with parts, but the spirit is there, especially in the section on what government cannot and should not do.
Yes, I can understand laws designed to protect the individual's rights. Do you believe that even half of the laws on the books today are designed solely with the intent to protect the individual's rights, and nothing more? All of the codes, rules, and regulations are not just about protecting rights.
As for equal protection under the law, you forget that the majority can hold sway, if they choose to discriminate against a minority. Take homosexuals for example. No equal protection under the laws for that minority. Before, it's been various ethnic groups, women, various religious groups, etc. No, there is no "minority protection" unless the majority wish there to be.
With a democracy, you have no corruption, because the government is not a distinct class. Everyone is the government. That is the historic principle behind democracy, not justice. Historically, majority rule is far from just and equal. One widely-known example of majority rule is Salem, Mass. Was that a just democracy? Government has very little to do with justice unless strict and explicit controls are placed on it to inhibit growth, no matter what you call it.
Lastly, I originally stated nothing more than the fact that this country is a republic, not a democracy. There is a distinct class in this country, the voting class, which votes to qualify a body known as the electoral college. These special voters in turn elect the two top executive officers. This special class also directly elects the members of the legislature. Not all citizens are allowed to vote, as these qualifications are determined by the legislature. Nowhere in a democracy will you see an electoral college. This is one of the qualifying features of the Republic. Finally, I'll say it again: popular opinion does not dictate fact. During Galileo's time, popular opinion was that the sun revolved around the earth. Popular opinion did not change the fact. Since the people have not changed the government type since its inception, the original term is still the most applicable. I'm sure you've heard the term "original intent." Even though times and words have changed, the original intent remains. This country was, is, and will be until changed, a republic, no matter what it is called in popular jargon. You yourself admit that it has historically been styled a republic. Even if a republic is called a democracy, it is still a republic.
There have been semi-decent candidates on the ballot every election. Have you ever bothered to read a Voter Information Pamphlet and do some research on the candidates? If you think there are only Democrats, Republicans, and the occasional odd-ball like Perot running, you're sorely mistaken. Unfortunately, none of the other candidates can raise the sort of money that the Big Two can. They don't get any visibility except for the little that their supporters can afford. They're shut out of the national debates because, "they don't have a chance of winning, so why feature them?" Even Perot got that line, just because he was independent, and look how much money he's got. No, the odds are just so stacked against anyone who's not a Demopublican that generally only their supporters will vote for them. Few others actually even look at them.
I'll take it from this post that you never looked up "United States," "republic," or "commonwealth." I was never arguing popularity. Socialism is popular in this country, but it doesn't mean that it's right for everyone. I was arguing facts, not opinions, which you can't seem to address.
What people think when you say a certain word speaks of their conditioning, not the factual basis behind the term. That's why most people equate the term "communism" with the USSR and think that Communists are bad people. The bad people where those who abuse their power, just like here.
Anyway, you're using fallacious logic again. Just because a country calls itself a "republic" does not mean it is one. Take The People's Republic of China for example. They certainly don't have a republican gov't. It's a flawed argument to say that just because countries calling themselves republics don't stand up to "our" standards that "republic" is the wrong word to use. This nation is a republic whether you like it or not, and whether or not "democracy" is the popular term. Compare the instances of the words "democracy" and "republic" from early historical documents pertaining to this country and the states that comprise it. Hell, why is there a Republican party, if it's not an important term relating to this country?
Regarding your take on my beliefs about voting, you've got some seriously screwed up ideas. In trying to prove you're right that people have the right to vote, you state several examples supporting your argument. The problem is, I never once said that people didn't have the right to vote. I specifically wrote the exact opposite, stating that I felt every vote makes a difference. How you came to your conclusion I have no idea, but maybe you should read what I've written a couple more times before replying with additional flawed logic.
I've responded to your arguments, refuting point by point, and yet you persist in using examples that have no bearing on the factuality of the situation. You substitute fallacy and opinion for logic and fact. Please, if you're going to continue replying, start basing your argument with something substantively related to the issue at hand.
A refresher course in reading might be necessary. I didn't say that there is no choice. There is always choice. However, since most people are apathetic toward government in the respect that they believe attempting to effect change is futile, they limit their own choice while giving the power away to those who would abuse it. This, in effect, makes change even harder, to the point now that there is a self-defeating cycle of restriction.
You've really got your blinders on with "democracy" thing, don't you? You can't even admit that legally and constitutionally the USA is a republic. A republic is much more specific than a democracy.
I compared the governmental attitude on the restriction of freedoms for the "welfare of the people" to that of the USSR. You didn't catch that with my explanation though, did you?
if we're not a democracy, and people don't actually "vote"
You sure seemed eager to discount my claim that we're not a democracy with all of your dictionaries, so how come you haven't even looked up "republic" in the dictionary? Or would it bruise your ego too much to admit that we're a republic with your in-depth (and groundless) claim that we're a democracy? Okay, refute this:
United States n. a republic in the N Western Hemisphere comprising 48 conterminous states, the District of Columbia, and Alaska in North America, and Hawaii in the N Pacific. 249,632,692; conterminous United States, 3,022,387 sq. mi. (7,827,982 sq. km) ; with Alaska and Hawaii, 3,615,122 sq. mi. (9,363,166 sq. km) . Cap.: Washington, D.C. Abbr.: U.S., US Also called United States of America, America.
Blind and irrational dogma. There's a mouthful coming from most anyone, because everyone has their own blind and irrational dogma, yes, even you and me. Deal. However, I'd like to hear some of this official blind and irrational dogma that you seem to be privy to. I'm sure there's something, because it exists in any doctrine, but it would be interesting to see what you actually know, and what you actually think is wrong with Libertarian ideas. Facts now, not biased, unbacked personal opinion.
Careful now, before replying, actually read what I wrote. Otherwise you end up looking foolish.
You see, what most people don't realize is that they're controlled by the little things. It's semantics that dictate how all of those laws, codes, rules, regulations, et cetera, affect your life. They're everywhere, yet nobody really ever reads the fine print, now do they? You should know that all the really messy stuff is in the fine print, the stuff that's so often sprung upon the unwary.
I didn't intend to start an enormous debate, it's just that the tendency to over-romanticize our "democracy" annoys me to no end. Nobody will get off their ass and do anything about their situation. Nearly 100% of the people I know go to work for 40+ hours a week, pay a quarter of their wages/salary to various taxing agencies, and then complain about it. Rinse, and repeat, ad nauseam. You tell them to do something about it, and they tell you you're nuts, one person can't change the system. So they go out and vote for the same regime every election. You've got one half of the US Party, the Republicans, and then you've got the other half, the Democrats. Just because they look and act a little different, and call themselves something else, doesn't mean they're different. Things change cosmetically. Some would argue that they get better or worse, but that's life. Do you get more freedom or less should be the question. Anyway, these same people elect these parties over and over, with either some misguided notion that it will get better, with the cynical notion that it doesn't matter, because they'll get elected anyway, or just out of blind loyalty. Most people fall somewhere in between. Nothing really changes because most people haven't changed. I know I can make a difference with one vote. My one vote doesn't add to the Republican Democrats, and it does add to someone more deserving, even if they're not likely to be elected. That's not the point.
Okay, the USSR was a bunch of republics. So is the UASR (United American Socialist Republics). I personally see very little difference in philosophy. Yes, there is a great difference in the quality of life for most individuals, but I'm speaking of freedom, not quality of life. When was the last time you could do something without having to get a permit, or a license, or some sort of permission from a controlling gov't agency? You pay property taxes, don't you? (only for those property owners out there.) You've got your government bread lines. You have a worker's permit number (SSN, in case you were wondering. Try getting a job without one.) so that the gov't can take their portion of your livelihood. You've got your federal retirement benefits, so you can live off of all the other people with worker's permit numbers when you're old, instead of families taking care of each other like it should be. You have to have assembly permits. The government dictates how you can and cannot use your property. You have to get a license to carry the few types of firearms that are legal for civilian use, and nearly all other weapons are banned. Your children are sent to state schools to learn state-approved material, or you're fined and/or arrested. You can homeschool in most states, but in many (and growing), you have to have a license.
Are you catching the general trend here? People should be allowed to do what they wish as long as they don't infringe on the rights of other people. Period. Can you tell me one thing that is intrinsically wrong with that statement, that is harmful or detrimental? I doubt it, but I'd like you to try. (Note: Use of the pronoun "you" is not intended to specifically target any one person.)
For those of you with more of a bent towards individual rights over government rule, check out the following. I wish the main points of the TC2K were adopted in every state. As with most, I disagree with parts, but on the whole it's awesome. As for the second, if you've got Libertarian tendencies, vote your conscience, don't swallow the party line.
Slashdot Mirror
Did a little looking because I felt a bit sheepish after your comment. Turns out you should do a bit more reading. It was the Nai Weapons Law of 1938 which expanded upon a previous national registration law. It was this national registry that was used to find people that the Nazis wanted to disarm. It was also used to ban whatever was deemed necessary by the Nazi officials. So it goes both ways. The people gave up enough power for the Nazis to take the rest.
It is true that I do not know the specifics of this portion of the events that led up to the Holocaust. I used the name that I did because it identified the event that actually happened. My point was that the German people gave up their rights willingly, through clever manipulation of words. Yes, it was governmental action that took them, similar in form to what is slowly happening in the States today. So while it might not have been a gun control act in name, that's what it was in spirit. The Nazi-controlled government first completed mandatory registration, and then they disarmed the populace, all through power given to them by the people of Germany.
Read some history before you jerk your knee. He's talking about what led up to the Holocaust, being the German Gun Control Act that disarmed the population, so that the Holocaust could take place.
I can't help but laugh at your argument. You think we live in a polite, civilized society? What rock have you been living under? If there's gun control, do you really think that someone who wants to use a gun to commit crime will care one little bit about the law? No, but the people who follow the law won't, so the criminals have it really easy. Anyway, the government comes down on gun-owners routinely in the US. It's just not routinely publicized.
Most gun owners aren't super macho gungho survivalist. Most are your average person, which is to say, anyone you might meet on the street. There are a couple common strains that link gun owners, but the above is by no means one of them. I don't own any firearms either, but I completely support the right to do so, as well as any other arms (I do carry a combat folder, which, ironically, is illegal many places). I live in a town where 90% of the populace has some sort of firearm or other, mostly due to hunting. Incidently, this area has a nearly zero incidence of burglary in occupied houses. The rate of gun deaths is almost nearly zero. This is evidence enough for me that a heavily armed populace is not automatically a bad thing.
And you stereotype him, because you say that he is a troll for mentioning the Holocaust. Tell me, did you ever consider why he did, in the context of his statement? No, obviously you didn't, because it fits perfectly. Hitler became as powerful as he was because he was successful in convincing the people of Germany to voluntarily give up their arms. He convinced them that their government could and would protect them. And why is it an insult to compare how the Holocaust started to something that looks nearly identical? (I'm not saying that's what will happen here, but the issues are remarkably similar.) It's used to stir people up, to get them to think about what's going on, for the sole purpose of making sure that the events do not turn out the way they did in the Holocaust. Just because you think it can't happen again doesn't mean jack. You are probably not one of the people who would work for it to happen actively, but your non-committal attitude is more than a blessing for those who wish to consolidate their power, as you're one less person to oppose tyranny. Tyrants love people who don't care. They're the last to be sold as slaves, but they're the easiest, because they damn themselves with their own attitudes.
This is exactly the point that many are missing here. Complete gun control is but the beginning. He made extraordinay promises, and said he would accomplish them if he was granted extraordinary powers. Thus, the German peoples gave up their Republic. Hitler led Germany out of the economic depression that it was in. He became more popular, and his power grew. He instituted more rules and regulations "for the good of the people." This is why you should laugh at the term "the good of the people," or "the common good." There is no such thing. The federal government was designed to do very limited things. Protect the States from outside forces. Coin money. Mediate interstate disputes. That's about it. It is not supposed to be socialist. There should be no government welfare, medicine, or any other socialistic enterprise, but we do, because it's for "the common good."
I'd say that if you really think you need handguns in the US, to protect you against the government, then your government is fundamentally flawed already.
This is one of the undercurrents of the government intrusion arguments here. Many people feel that the federal government of these united States is fundamentally flawed. Unfortunately, those who call themselves "government agents" tend to use force when they don't get their way. If you attempt to resist their force, they call more of their friends to beat you down. That's because people who thrive on control gravitate toward government jobs, and use their power in a concerted manner to get more power. There is your fundamental flaw.
It's really not about you having the gun because you plan on killing someone, but merely because it might become necessary. You own it because there are people out there who have no problem killing you. Therefore, if you, and everyone else out there, are armed, the criminal is going to have to seriously rethink his vocation. After all, they like to target the homes of people who don't own guns, because then they have less of a chance of being shot. You don't own guns because you're violent, you own them because there are other people out there who are violent.
Actually, that's not quite the case. Federal troops held all of the major cities in the south under martial law several years after the end of aggressions was declared. The southern legislatures wouldn't ratify the 13th and 14th amendments, so the northern-controlled Congress declared military rule in the southern states that wouldn't comply. The legislatures were held invalid. The State Constitutions were scrapped, and rewritten, and then sent to Congress for approval. (Since when does a state need approval from Congress to change its Constitution? Never.) Once the new legislatures were installed, they immediately voted yes to the new amendments, and the federal troops left. But history is written by the victors, and most people never actually learn what really happened after the Uncivil War. (Note, I'm not condoning slavery.)
It looks like you find striving for liberty to be something objectionable. A heavily-armed population is a much more peaceful population, contrary to what the terrorcrats would have you think. The places with the highest crime rates have the strictest gun control, ala NYC and DC. Those with the lowest have the highest percentages of gun ownership, ala the city I live in where you see a loaded rifle rack in the rear window of 90% of the trucks. If you're a criminal in a city where 90% of the people are armed, who are you really gonna mug? Yeah, nobody. You're gonna move to a nice, safe criminal haven, with strict gun laws, because unlike all the "law-abiding citizens," you're more than happy to get an unregistered firearm, and carry it in the commission of a crime. So much for the statist gun-control ideas. If you're into gun control, you're generally either a) uninformed, or b) secretly (or even overtly) yearn to control other people.
Actually, Scalia is a textualist, not a constructionist, but the difference is almost non-existent. :)
It's only unconsitutional if the Supreme Court says it is, and since they've upheld it, it's not. That's the easy way around the Constitution, stacking the Supreme court with partisan, police-loving lawyers.
There are numerous seizure laws that don't even require property to be returned if the victim of the seizure is found innocent, most often dealing with drug-related charges. In theory, you're innocent until proven guilty. However, in practice, you're considered guilty until proven innocent, and even then you'll quite possibly never get your property back.
They'd uphold it if the company could actually prove you were doing something that broke the TOS. Good luck for them to try and get evidence of you running a proxy to filter the ads.
Similar to what I do. With my Matrox card, I can double the vertical space on my desktop. Then I place all annoyances at the very bottom, and use as normal. Just don't maximize anything. ;)
The "Internet" is not an natural/juristic entity, and does not represent any natural/juristic entities. Thus, using it in such a manner cannot in any way constitute slander or libel. Who is going to sue claiming that they were directly defamed by the statement? Nobody. It could only constitute slander or libel in the most broad and indirect sense, and would be laughed out of the courtroom.
< offtopic> :)
Yet another small correction. You're both kind of correct, because while the word "janus" means doorway or new beginning, January is named for Janus, the Roman god of doorways and new beginnings. I'll quit nitpicking.
</offtopic>
I haven't actually bothered to look up the exact code, so I may be way off base, but I believe that the USPS is a monopoly by law. It sticks in my head that some time during the early 19th century there was a small, cheap, super-efficient courier company that ran mail between New York and Boston, and that they were shut down by a Congressional bill because they were doing more business than the USPS. Again, completely unsubstantiated because I'm feeling lazy tonight, so take it with a bottle of salt. If you really want to know, get diggin'. :)
btw, a complete list of ZIP codes came on the BeOS R3 CD, never checked the others though.
Major misinterpretation. Did I anywhere say that you espoused the belief that popular opinion changed the government? It actually does to an extent, but that's neither here nor there. What I was comparing the example of Galileo and popular opinion to was what we have purportedly been talking about the entire time: the semantics involved between "republic" and "democracy." You were speaking of the popular opinion as relates to what the government is called, not what the government is. Nobody has mentioned anything about what the gov't is, so isn't it a little pointless to throw that in here now?
;)
I again relate you to various countries calling themselves that which they are not. It might be colloquially understood and correct, but it doesn't translate correctly to that which is understood anywhere else. If people started calling the US an oligarchy, the definition would change and be understood locally, butn the rest of the world would know that the US was a bunch of quacks. (Not saying they don't think so already.
Anyway, it is still legally considered a republican government. (On a side note, I was looking at a case on FindLaw and noticed for the first time that they have a searchable online legal dictionary. On a lark, I put in "republic," and it spit out your latest def. of democracy verbatim.) Then there's the reference to republican gov't in the Constitution, still generally considered to be accurate legally. *shrug*
As for a republic not always being a democracy, I agree. A republic is always in the form of elected respresentation. A democracy is not always so. I've held that the entire time, so it is an irrelevant point.
I did not wrongly assume you were uneducated. I did not assume you were uneducated. I was not even directly speaking to, of, or about you. I was addressing a point regarding the usage of the word democracy. It has been molded over time into a political device used to instill nationalistic pride/superiority in those it's used on, it is consistently used as a large, blunt instrument to say, "we're better because we're democratic. That's the American Way." You can disagree, but it's true. You used it to help justify the actions of the Seattle police, and the laws they were enforcing, by invoking nationalism. Anyway, just because someone is educated does not mean they actually think about their motivation in speaking the way that they do. A large portion of those who use the term do so because of social indoctrination. They never bother to learn history. You just happened to be one person that used it, and I used that opportunity to express my agitation on the issue.
I would be surprised if you had delved into this subject before I brought it up, but anything's possible. Since you unequivocally pronounced me wrong in your first reply, instead of bringing up immediately regarding historical relevance what you brought up later, it stands to reason that you did not, in fact, "look it up" before the fact. Again, it's possible that you did, but you approached your argument from the wrong perspective if you did.
Another statement you claim for me that I never made. I said nothing about the definition of democracy not allowing for representational democracy. I merely said that "republic" was the more technically correct term (both from a legal and a historical standpoint, though I did not make that point then.) Basically, we were arguing at, and not debating with, one another. You with your popular linguistics, and me with my technical. There is a place for both, but again, I dislike "democracy" for its nationalistic connotations, so I opt for "republic," which is much more individualistic than the mob-rule "democracy."
In closing, you claim to offer two bits of advice. Like many who offer their advice, I counter with the statement, "You should consider following your own advice first, before dispensing it to others." You say I have put on airs. Are you not just as guilty? I happen to like debating semantics. If you think I have acted superior, that is something you have to deal with. I merely argue what I believe to be true. You say I have an edge to my writing, while you yourself started off with a long, pointed response, ostensibly in attempt to crush my feeble statement regarding word usage, as you stated with much superiority, "You have no inkling as to my education." (Note, that is as close an attempt to an exact quote as I'm going to get, but the spirit is there.) I will admit that my choice of words in my original post could likely have been taken as a direct insult, but they were not intended to be. You chose to respond in a very edged manner, which, even though I instigated it, was not necessary. I am not attempting to excuse what you may consider to be a continuing edge to my posts, but this is the way I write. I will apologize for my first post, but for none of the rest, unless I have truly made a direct statement about you that is unequivocally wrong. I don't believe that has happened as yet. Finally, you say that I should make an argument for why "republic" is better than "democracy." I've already said several things about each. Democracy as it is used today is very much a political construct that has been molded to achieve a certain effect in the listener when it is used. It is statist and nationalistic, both of which I find abhorrent. It promotes the "people" over the rights of the individual. It's about "us" and "we" over "and each together." It justifies all the laws in this country today, because they're "democratic, so they can't be unjust." Semantics are everything, my friend. Just ask your neighborhood lawyer. And if you don't think so, who do you think is running this country? That's right, the lawyers. And what do lawyers like to do? Right, confuse the issue with legal words where each is explicitly defined and put together with other legal words, which are combined in double-speak. Yes, semantics are everything, especially when you're speaking of an issue like the above article which involves police, the law, and politics.
A Republican gov't is, and only is, where eligible voters elect representatives to positions in gov't. Nothing more, nothing less. Is that not the theoretical system in place today?
You're right that in a democracy a law could not stand in defiance of the people. The only difference would be if the people ruled directly, which, in this country, they don't. Therefore, that distinction is a moot point.
There is no room for any democracy other than that specifically defined under "republic," unless the Constitution is removed. A pure democracy is essentially anarchy. (I don't use that term in the sense of utter chaos that many (most) people envision as anarchy.)
This debate is stemming solely from a semantic argument, since our points are essentially the same. However, my sole disagreement is your contention that "republican govt" is not based on sovereign power retained by the people over the govt. The heart of a Republican government is that it is elected by the voters of the country that it serves. The government of the USA is elected (short the judicial) by the voters of this country. In a democracy, there are no voting qualifications. Remember, women were not always allowed to vote in this country, and blacks prior to that. That's not a democracy, because there are restrictions on voting. In local land tax matters, only landowners get to vote in most localities. That is because of voting qualifications. In a democracy, everyone who lived in the locality could vote on the matter. Basically, the only time "democracy" qualifies to describe this country, is when "republic" is a more narrow and accurate description.
"My" Libertarian doctrine cannot argue that people have the right to do what? Make fair and equal laws? That sentence does not make a clear reference to that which precedes it.
As for your views on Libertarians, it seems you haven't done your homework. Most Libertarians would prefer to see as few laws on the books as possible. No laws against anything that is not a violation of someone else's rights. Like I put in a previous post, if you'd like to see a pretty good Libertarian viewon the law, read the Texas Constituntion 2000. Everyone's likely to disagree with parts, but the spirit is there, especially in the section on what government cannot and should not do.
Yes, I can understand laws designed to protect the individual's rights. Do you believe that even half of the laws on the books today are designed solely with the intent to protect the individual's rights, and nothing more? All of the codes, rules, and regulations are not just about protecting rights.
As for equal protection under the law, you forget that the majority can hold sway, if they choose to discriminate against a minority. Take homosexuals for example. No equal protection under the laws for that minority. Before, it's been various ethnic groups, women, various religious groups, etc. No, there is no "minority protection" unless the majority wish there to be.
With a democracy, you have no corruption, because the government is not a distinct class. Everyone is the government. That is the historic principle behind democracy, not justice. Historically, majority rule is far from just and equal. One widely-known example of majority rule is Salem, Mass. Was that a just democracy? Government has very little to do with justice unless strict and explicit controls are placed on it to inhibit growth, no matter what you call it.
Lastly, I originally stated nothing more than the fact that this country is a republic, not a democracy. There is a distinct class in this country, the voting class, which votes to qualify a body known as the electoral college. These special voters in turn elect the two top executive officers. This special class also directly elects the members of the legislature. Not all citizens are allowed to vote, as these qualifications are determined by the legislature. Nowhere in a democracy will you see an electoral college. This is one of the qualifying features of the Republic. Finally, I'll say it again: popular opinion does not dictate fact. During Galileo's time, popular opinion was that the sun revolved around the earth. Popular opinion did not change the fact. Since the people have not changed the government type since its inception, the original term is still the most applicable. I'm sure you've heard the term "original intent." Even though times and words have changed, the original intent remains. This country was, is, and will be until changed, a republic, no matter what it is called in popular jargon. You yourself admit that it has historically been styled a republic. Even if a republic is called a democracy, it is still a republic.
There have been semi-decent candidates on the ballot every election. Have you ever bothered to read a Voter Information Pamphlet and do some research on the candidates? If you think there are only Democrats, Republicans, and the occasional odd-ball like Perot running, you're sorely mistaken. Unfortunately, none of the other candidates can raise the sort of money that the Big Two can. They don't get any visibility except for the little that their supporters can afford. They're shut out of the national debates because, "they don't have a chance of winning, so why feature them?" Even Perot got that line, just because he was independent, and look how much money he's got. No, the odds are just so stacked against anyone who's not a Demopublican that generally only their supporters will vote for them. Few others actually even look at them.
I'll take it from this post that you never looked up "United States," "republic," or "commonwealth." I was never arguing popularity. Socialism is popular in this country, but it doesn't mean that it's right for everyone. I was arguing facts, not opinions, which you can't seem to address.
What people think when you say a certain word speaks of their conditioning, not the factual basis behind the term. That's why most people equate the term "communism" with the USSR and think that Communists are bad people. The bad people where those who abuse their power, just like here.
Anyway, you're using fallacious logic again. Just because a country calls itself a "republic" does not mean it is one. Take The People's Republic of China for example. They certainly don't have a republican gov't. It's a flawed argument to say that just because countries calling themselves republics don't stand up to "our" standards that "republic" is the wrong word to use. This nation is a republic whether you like it or not, and whether or not "democracy" is the popular term. Compare the instances of the words "democracy" and "republic" from early historical documents pertaining to this country and the states that comprise it. Hell, why is there a Republican party, if it's not an important term relating to this country?
Regarding your take on my beliefs about voting, you've got some seriously screwed up ideas. In trying to prove you're right that people have the right to vote, you state several examples supporting your argument. The problem is, I never once said that people didn't have the right to vote. I specifically wrote the exact opposite, stating that I felt every vote makes a difference. How you came to your conclusion I have no idea, but maybe you should read what I've written a couple more times before replying with additional flawed logic.
I've responded to your arguments, refuting point by point, and yet you persist in using examples that have no bearing on the factuality of the situation. You substitute fallacy and opinion for logic and fact. Please, if you're going to continue replying, start basing your argument with something substantively related to the issue at hand.
A refresher course in reading might be necessary. I didn't say that there is no choice. There is always choice. However, since most people are apathetic toward government in the respect that they believe attempting to effect change is futile, they limit their own choice while giving the power away to those who would abuse it. This, in effect, makes change even harder, to the point now that there is a self-defeating cycle of restriction.
You've really got your blinders on with "democracy" thing, don't you? You can't even admit that legally and constitutionally the USA is a republic. A republic is much more specific than a democracy.
I compared the governmental attitude on the restriction of freedoms for the "welfare of the people" to that of the USSR. You didn't catch that with my explanation though, did you?
if we're not a democracy, and people don't actually "vote"
You sure seemed eager to discount my claim that we're not a democracy with all of your dictionaries, so how come you haven't even looked up "republic" in the dictionary? Or would it bruise your ego too much to admit that we're a republic with your in-depth (and groundless) claim that we're a democracy? Okay, refute this:
United States n.
a republic in the N Western Hemisphere comprising 48 conterminous states, the District of Columbia, and Alaska in North America, and Hawaii in the N Pacific. 249,632,692; conterminous United States, 3,022,387 sq. mi. (7,827,982 sq. km) ; with Alaska and Hawaii, 3,615,122 sq. mi. (9,363,166 sq. km) . Cap.: Washington, D.C. Abbr.: U.S., US Also called United States of America, America.
Blind and irrational dogma. There's a mouthful coming from most anyone, because everyone has their own blind and irrational dogma, yes, even you and me. Deal. However, I'd like to hear some of this official blind and irrational dogma that you seem to be privy to. I'm sure there's something, because it exists in any doctrine, but it would be interesting to see what you actually know, and what you actually think is wrong with Libertarian ideas. Facts now, not biased, unbacked personal opinion.
Careful now, before replying, actually read what I wrote. Otherwise you end up looking foolish.
You see, what most people don't realize is that they're controlled by the little things. It's semantics that dictate how all of those laws, codes, rules, regulations, et cetera, affect your life. They're everywhere, yet nobody really ever reads the fine print, now do they? You should know that all the really messy stuff is in the fine print, the stuff that's so often sprung upon the unwary.
I didn't intend to start an enormous debate, it's just that the tendency to over-romanticize our "democracy" annoys me to no end. Nobody will get off their ass and do anything about their situation. Nearly 100% of the people I know go to work for 40+ hours a week, pay a quarter of their wages/salary to various taxing agencies, and then complain about it. Rinse, and repeat, ad nauseam. You tell them to do something about it, and they tell you you're nuts, one person can't change the system. So they go out and vote for the same regime every election. You've got one half of the US Party, the Republicans, and then you've got the other half, the Democrats. Just because they look and act a little different, and call themselves something else, doesn't mean they're different. Things change cosmetically. Some would argue that they get better or worse, but that's life. Do you get more freedom or less should be the question. Anyway, these same people elect these parties over and over, with either some misguided notion that it will get better, with the cynical notion that it doesn't matter, because they'll get elected anyway, or just out of blind loyalty. Most people fall somewhere in between. Nothing really changes because most people haven't changed. I know I can make a difference with one vote. My one vote doesn't add to the Republican Democrats, and it does add to someone more deserving, even if they're not likely to be elected. That's not the point.
Okay, the USSR was a bunch of republics. So is the UASR (United American Socialist Republics). I personally see very little difference in philosophy. Yes, there is a great difference in the quality of life for most individuals, but I'm speaking of freedom, not quality of life. When was the last time you could do something without having to get a permit, or a license, or some sort of permission from a controlling gov't agency? You pay property taxes, don't you? (only for those property owners out there.) You've got your government bread lines. You have a worker's permit number (SSN, in case you were wondering. Try getting a job without one.) so that the gov't can take their portion of your livelihood. You've got your federal retirement benefits, so you can live off of all the other people with worker's permit numbers when you're old, instead of families taking care of each other like it should be. You have to have assembly permits. The government dictates how you can and cannot use your property. You have to get a license to carry the few types of firearms that are legal for civilian use, and nearly all other weapons are banned. Your children are sent to state schools to learn state-approved material, or you're fined and/or arrested. You can homeschool in most states, but in many (and growing), you have to have a license.
Are you catching the general trend here? People should be allowed to do what they wish as long as they don't infringe on the rights of other people. Period. Can you tell me one thing that is intrinsically wrong with that statement, that is harmful or detrimental? I doubt it, but I'd like you to try. (Note: Use of the pronoun "you" is not intended to specifically target any one person.)
For those of you with more of a bent towards individual rights over government rule, check out the following. I wish the main points of the TC2K were adopted in every state. As with most, I disagree with parts, but on the whole it's awesome. As for the second, if you've got Libertarian tendencies, vote your conscience, don't swallow the party line.
Texas Constitution 2000
Libertarian Party