Man.... I do sometimes question some decisions made with unix directory operations. Like some of the legal characters in directorynames, for instance. I mean, escaping spaces is all fine and dandy, but what about "/usr/bin/?*&!" Perfectly legal unix filename, but an unholy bitch to deal with. Not that anyone would ever do that with non-malicious motives, but still...
Except that this is a problem directly attributable to the "free and open society." Furthermore, it's one we've seen before.
The problem isn't one of creating wealth/value, it's one of relative shares in the wealth created. The modern CEO makes between 100 to 300 times that of the lowest worker. Ignoring the question of whether that is fair or just, that sort of inequity CAUSES CONCRETE PROBLEMS. Look at, for instance, the conditions during America's "Gilded Age."
Furthermore, both candidates are talking about shifting the tax burden. McCain plans to shift it down, by cutting corporate, inheritance, and property taxes. Obama plans to shift it down, to the middle class. Neither one of them is a socialist; they're not planning on nationalizing the banking system (further, anyway, after the bailout), they're not planning on nationalizing health care, etc.
I understand that it gets you all excited to get to pull out the "Better Dead than Red" stickers and such, but please, try and use words that have something to do with reality.
Also, try and get a better understanding of the creation of value. Because, assuredly, it does not mean that you can just print money and it will all be ok.
Those that did well for themselves, or those who've benefited from the system. Or, who've inherited massive fortunes.
Regardless, you're turning something that's complex, and trying to turn it into a small, morally pat statement. It's not going to be true, no matter how many times you say it.
Right now, we have a system that channels a hugely disproportionate amount of wealth into a vanishingly small percentage of the population. Everyone, republican, democrat, I believe even the saner end of libertarians, everyone believes that having a strong, populous middle class is a valuable thing in an economy.
Well, we don't have it, and it's the fault of policies that have unwisely and arbitrarily shifted the largest part of American wealth into a tiny percentage of the population.
Obama's planned tax strategy is a small step toward restoring some kind of balance. And if there were any real Republicans left, they'd be attempting to do the same.
No, he's not. Regardless of whether he's closer to socialism than anyone else in America (which isn't remotely accurate either), the man just isn't a socialist. Sorry, but words have meanings, and unless you can explain how a limited capitalist who favors private health care with regulation is magically a socialist, you can shut the hell up.
But then, socialist doesn't actually have a meaning in the current American political discourse, does it? It's just a smear word, attached to the watered down McCarthyism we inherited from our parents.
Honest to god. Just because Bush is "as close to a fascist dictator as America will entertain" doesn't actually make him a fascist dictator. It's this kind of mental laziness that lets people pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate.
Do you have any proof of this? (Note: That was a rhetorical question; I know you don't have any.
Hmmm, I come from Florida... have I met any racist republicans who are worried about Obama because he's black. Well, maybe I have. Hell, I'm related to some of them. You maybe should have waited to declare what I have or have not seen until you heard back from me, eh?
Note, this isn't being presented as proof, just anecdotal evidence. Note that that's still more than you actually present for your racist Obama fanclub theory.
And, again, I'm not actually saying that there's some huge racist THING going on. I'm saying that, at worst, the Democrat side is balanced with the Republican in this.
Now, I've seen people vote Obama because they want a black man as president, but of course, that is perfectly fine, as racism only works one way.
Racism does work both ways. It exists on both sides. And given the relative numbers (remember that black people are a minority), I think it's entirely possible that more racists are voting for McCain than Obama. I certainly think that more racial and cultural attacks have been made by McCain's supporters than Obama's, such as the "Obama is a Muslim" rumor, or the "Obama bucks Food stamps," or the waffle mix with him as a racist caricature. Whether that's opportunity or malice, I can't say, but hell, it sure is racist.
I don't think the government should be funded. And I don't think it has (nor should it have) legitimate authority. If people want to wage wars they should do it with their own time and money. Don't tell me that's too expensive, because we're already paying for it.
So, what's the mechanism for dealing with an invasion by a foreign power? Defensive uses for the military do exist, after all. How do we deal with riots? How do paved roads and interstates get maintained?
I don't see how you can reform a corrupt system by taking part in it.
You can't reform a system in any other way. You can overthrow a system without taking part in it, but reform is, by definition, from within the system.
All we need to do is reject the government's authority. If everyone, or most people reject it, it will dissipate like the cloud of smoke and nonsense it is.
Except that's not a real possibility. What is possible is that enough people will become angry enough to revolt, leading to a civil insurrection. That would be horrible, much worse than the current system where, sorry, you aren't allowed to have black tar heroin or assault rifles.
This is my problem with almost all Libertarian politics; they're all based on the idea that if you make an idea work in a reductionist model that doesn't take into account the complexities of the real world, it still counts as a valid politcal/economic theory. Or, in your case, that doesn't even take into account that there is NEVER a case where everyone agrees perfectly on what is right. It never really takes into account that, in an unbounded system, those who manage to seize power will abuse it.
And quit raging on my sensationalist rhetoric. This is important stuff and I am only giving it the consideration it is due. It is fully worthy of such words.
I would assume that, if it was important, you'd want to treat it with seriousness and thought, rather than flippancy and sensationalism. Go on harming your credibility if you want to; I'd rather you failed to convince anyone anyway, since you hold beliefs I feel are harmful.
Sure I am. How so? Has throwing "rape" around resulted in acclaim, and massive converts for the libertarian cause?
Can you actually make a reasoned defense of the point behind what you're saying? Without using analogy? Because analogy doesn't actually work as proof; the only non-decorative purpose of analogies is to explain something, and we all understand the issues here well enough.
So how would you propose that government be funded? Barring that, how would you propose a society without government be run? What do you think is the proper action to take to correct these injustices you mention, without participating in said government at all, without voting or attempting to gain office and change from the inside?
What, exactly, save a series of grotesque analogies, are you contributing to discourse?
You've said very little, except that you want guns and drugs and that you don't want to pay taxes.
Please, amaze me. Or at least say ANYTHING that has one bit of substance, and has anything to do with fact, instead of cloaking your lack of ideas in sensationalist rhetoric.
I never said that you have no right to complain. I don't personally hold to that theory. I only said that your argument is juvenile and ill-thought out, and that your choice of analogy is inaccurate, callous, and disgusting.
Assuming that person can aim that gun well enough to hit a person sized target while under stress, and can prevent you from taking it away from them. And replacing "gun" with "baseball bat" gives the same result, by the way. Or knife, or any other weapon that doesn't rely on massive amounts of training to make it useful.
It's not that having a gun doesn't make someone more dangerous, it's that it doesn't make them equal to another person with a gun. It's not an equalizer, it's a tool that increases one's capacity for damaging violence.
Even given that he's an idiot, it says something that they chose an idiot to run for the highest office in the land. Either way, my point stands; the Republican party has been trumpeting "Anti-intellect" for years now.
Look. I don't know how to get this through, so I'll speak bluntly.
Your experience is nothing like rape in either kind or degree. It's a bad analogy in that it doesn't remotely relate, and it's a bad analogy in that it's insensitive to victims of a horrifying crime.
You are, of course, free to keep using it. But everyone who sees it is going to think less of you, and points you have that may be valid will be ignored because of it.
Look. If you don't like Obama, that's fine. If you don't like his platform, don't vote for him.
But calling him a socialist is either ignorance or deliberate falsehood. He's just not a socialist, and I say this without any judgments either way, having nothing particularly against socialists (Communists are another matter. Not a fan of Communism).
Stop buying into political smears, and start actually going through the platforms for facts, instead of spin.
Please, let me know what it is that I said (Use the friendly "Blockquote" tag, if you would) that is a demonstrable lie. I genuinely do not know what the hell you are talking about, unless it is my omitting the possible use of guns for hunting, which I have admitted was an oversight.
If that is the issue, an oversight is not a lie. It is a mistake. I am sure that you have made mistakes before, and would not think of calling you a liar on that basis.
I'm honestly bewildered here. Unless you have something to say that's not a personal attack, I will not respond to any more of your comments in this thread. I look forward to discussing with the original poster our differences of opinion and positions.
Please remember there are real people on both sides of the internet connection.
What is the source of this hostility? I'm not "lying," although perhaps I was unclear, and I do acknowledge that your correction as to the potential use of guns to hunt is accurate, although not really attached to the discussion at hand. I don't know how I've earned this hostility here.
Also, I'm a moderate Democrat (probably left of center on social issues).
Just because something bad got written into the Constitution makes it better than something bad that didn't make it in? I think this is an especially interesting example, given that it was a compromise position not to specifically DISallow slaves in the Constitution.
The Constitution is amendable for a reason. "It had to be done that way several hundred years ago in order to reach consensus" isn't a strong enough argument for me, especially against "It's unjust right now."
As a result of living in the U.S. legally without the threat of deportation, you pay that tax. You pay it, regardless of voting.
And it's also used to keep roads viable, provide for education, and keep serial killers out of your backyard.
It's not a good metaphor, it's a heavily charged one that lets you be "shocking." It fails to actually forward your opinion or explain anything about what you actually believe is going on. And it keeps people from taking you seriously, and can even pre-dispose people to take the other side. If you actually care about the position you hold, you should drop the "rape" thing.
Alright, then, it's a "device intended to do harm at a distance." Regardless, there is a difference between something primarily designed as a weapon, and something that has harmful effects. His statement was, as best I can summarize it, is that "Guns are equivalent to cars in the danger they present, thus anyone who can be trusted with a car can be trusted with a gun." My main point is that it matters that the car has significant non-dangerous uses, but (in a city or town, anyway - hunting is besides the point for this discussion) guns do not. Harm from cars is predominantly accidental to a much greater extent than harm from guns. This is because guns exist to cause harm to people and/or animals. That's kind of what they do.
I'm not directly countering some of his statements, that's true. I've interacting with his statements, and having a discussion with him. Some people talk about things in more nuanced ways than "Fuck you, you're wrong."
I would also like to note that, except for the hunting statement, which is kind of bizarrely of-point and deals with a technicality more than the main thrust of my statement, you haven't countered my statement either. Instead, you've made a direct attack on me, based on two points of language.
I haven't ignored points that refute me... I haven't even had the chance. I replied to him, not the other way around.
Also, what are you even saying with the "Republican cohorts" line? I'm not even sure what you're trying for there.
... and right now, more than half of the states BENEFIT from the electoral college system - at least in term of their votes being artificially inflated. Activism in this regard is a complete waste of time, IMHO.
So, because something is difficult to change, it's a waste of time to fight it?
Convenience over correctness is our current political disease, not something to be embraced.
Ahem. Demonstrably gameable. Just because we stopped them from kicking us, doesn't mean it's not a problem that they're kicking.
That's GOOD. If you live in a rural state you can pool your votes to maintain relevance. If you live in a state with big cities you can dole out the votes to take away the influence of the population centers. Or, you can all decide to flip a coin. Local control.
Rather, that's good if you live in a rural state. All of the things you've mentioned are tools for a minority to keep control over a majority. Not, in my mind, a good thing. And this is local control over non-local decisions. I totally understand why I have no vote in electing the Wyoming senate or government; they don't affect me as much as you. But the president affects every citizen equally. What did you, personally do, that makes you count more than me on a decision that affects us equally?
That's only true if your goal is "one man, one vote". That was never the founding fathers' intentions, and the mixed population-based/popular-based systems in the constitution were quite successful in getting very different states together to ratify the constitution.
Yeah, but what's its goal now? What's its function now, except to create inequity in representation?
We don't change ideals to meet antique laws, we change laws to match current ideals.
We do have a right not to incriminate ourselves, and I don't see how pleading the 5th on what one's passphrase is is any different on pleading the 5th on where the body is buried. One's motivation in both cases may be to "hide evidence", but there you have it. If you say one does not have a right to plead the 5th in one case, I don't see how one could possibly have the right to plead the 5th in the other.
Except that the 5th is, in fact, limited to testimonial evidence, and a passphrase is no more testimonial evidence than a safe combination. Just because you have to say it, doesn't make it testimony.
Just because something is a law does not automatically "justify" it, and one would have to make a pretty convincing argument on how, say, downloading kiddie p0rn from the Usenet or other sources for free enhances the activities of those who create it. There is no profit motive; there is not much of a way for the producers to know who is downloading it or to what degree. So convince me.
It doesn't "morally" justify it, but it does in fact justify it as legally correct. At this point, I'm not arguing about right and wrong, but about whether something is legal.
Secondly, well, there may not be direct, per-viewing harm, but anyone who is a consumer of child pornography is essentially concealing a source of child pornography, unless they are doing so openly. Even without a direct profit chain, they are still thus contributing to the sexual exploitation of children.
I'm not quoting it, but the "is it viewing, or just having it" question is simply answered, because it is a felony to possess child pornography. There was a recent case in Tampa, for instance, where a lawyer, holding onto a tape of an under-18 girl filmed for a girls-gone-wild type video, was arrested for having possession of child pornography. I know this partly because the guy owed my mom money (unrelated);-)
It is just as bad to falsely convict a person of child pornography as it is to actively engage in child pornography itself. If you can devise a means that would catch the guilty whilst not harming the innocent in anyway, I am all ears.
I'm not sure I buy this. It's as bad to mess up a conviction accidentally as to rape a child and film it? Only in a world where every single fault has equal weight.
And again; no legal system ever extant will ever manage a 100% accuracy rate. It's just not possible. The only way to never accidentally harm innocents is to not have any justice system or police. And that hurts everyone, far, far worse than even a fairly corrupt system of courts.
That isn't to say that we don't need sweeping reforms, or that we don't have large problems. We do, and we do. But this isn't one of those problems. Assuming (and we are, again, because it's outside the scope of the argument) that probable cause exists and is sound, there's no good reason that a court can't demand a passphrase on a drive that is known to belong to the suspect.
Does Wyoming have the resources to exist outside the framework of the U.S.? Does Wyoming fail to benefit from being a part of the U.S. without the electoral college? Is this a fair deal now?
Southern states joined the U.S.A. under the understanding that they could hold slaves.
There come times in the course of history where the agreement between populace and government (and between government and subservient governments) have to be renegotiated. Injustice is the best cause for such I can imagine.
Yeaaaah... That's not how it works, remotely. Welfare doesn't pay out equal to a living wage, and doesn't remotely cover the expense of maintaining a child.
The fact remains, welfare isn't actually a significant drain on the average taxpayer. Social security, maybe, but social security benefits are specifically not based on poverty, and you stand to benefit from them as much as anyone else.
Reagan actually made up the example he used when he coined the term, and the fact is, while welfare fraud does exist, it's never been the TERRIFYING HORROR DISEASE that alarmist rhetoric has made it out to be.
Also, through both community work and less fortunate family members, I can tell you for certain that that is not how HUD housing works. The income does scale, but even with extremely low income (my mother has no steady work, my brother unemployed), they pay $750 in rent per month. Add to that that, if they find work that brings them up to the poverty line (collectively, not singly), they have to move out.
I very much hate to say this, but you are uninformed. Do actual research. If you're interested, I can find the names of good books on the subject for you; I don't have them off the top of my head.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow. I had never even thought of that.
Man.... I do sometimes question some decisions made with unix directory operations. Like some of the legal characters in directorynames, for instance. I mean, escaping spaces is all fine and dandy, but what about "/usr/bin/?*&!" Perfectly legal unix filename, but an unholy bitch to deal with. Not that anyone would ever do that with non-malicious motives, but still...
Ahem. Massively lower amounts of gun-crime, not a magic universe where guns don't exist.
Except that this is a problem directly attributable to the "free and open society." Furthermore, it's one we've seen before.
The problem isn't one of creating wealth/value, it's one of relative shares in the wealth created. The modern CEO makes between 100 to 300 times that of the lowest worker. Ignoring the question of whether that is fair or just, that sort of inequity CAUSES CONCRETE PROBLEMS. Look at, for instance, the conditions during America's "Gilded Age."
Furthermore, both candidates are talking about shifting the tax burden. McCain plans to shift it down, by cutting corporate, inheritance, and property taxes. Obama plans to shift it down, to the middle class. Neither one of them is a socialist; they're not planning on nationalizing the banking system (further, anyway, after the bailout), they're not planning on nationalizing health care, etc.
I understand that it gets you all excited to get to pull out the "Better Dead than Red" stickers and such, but please, try and use words that have something to do with reality.
Also, try and get a better understanding of the creation of value. Because, assuredly, it does not mean that you can just print money and it will all be ok.
Those that did well for themselves, or those who've benefited from the system. Or, who've inherited massive fortunes.
Regardless, you're turning something that's complex, and trying to turn it into a small, morally pat statement. It's not going to be true, no matter how many times you say it.
Right now, we have a system that channels a hugely disproportionate amount of wealth into a vanishingly small percentage of the population. Everyone, republican, democrat, I believe even the saner end of libertarians, everyone believes that having a strong, populous middle class is a valuable thing in an economy.
Well, we don't have it, and it's the fault of policies that have unwisely and arbitrarily shifted the largest part of American wealth into a tiny percentage of the population.
Obama's planned tax strategy is a small step toward restoring some kind of balance. And if there were any real Republicans left, they'd be attempting to do the same.
No, he's not. Regardless of whether he's closer to socialism than anyone else in America (which isn't remotely accurate either), the man just isn't a socialist. Sorry, but words have meanings, and unless you can explain how a limited capitalist who favors private health care with regulation is magically a socialist, you can shut the hell up.
But then, socialist doesn't actually have a meaning in the current American political discourse, does it? It's just a smear word, attached to the watered down McCarthyism we inherited from our parents.
Honest to god. Just because Bush is "as close to a fascist dictator as America will entertain" doesn't actually make him a fascist dictator. It's this kind of mental laziness that lets people pull the wool over the eyes of the electorate.
Hmmm, I come from Florida... have I met any racist republicans who are worried about Obama because he's black. Well, maybe I have. Hell, I'm related to some of them. You maybe should have waited to declare what I have or have not seen until you heard back from me, eh?
Note, this isn't being presented as proof, just anecdotal evidence. Note that that's still more than you actually present for your racist Obama fanclub theory.
And, again, I'm not actually saying that there's some huge racist THING going on. I'm saying that, at worst, the Democrat side is balanced with the Republican in this.
Racism does work both ways. It exists on both sides. And given the relative numbers (remember that black people are a minority), I think it's entirely possible that more racists are voting for McCain than Obama. I certainly think that more racial and cultural attacks have been made by McCain's supporters than Obama's, such as the "Obama is a Muslim" rumor, or the "Obama bucks Food stamps," or the waffle mix with him as a racist caricature. Whether that's opportunity or malice, I can't say, but hell, it sure is racist.
So, what's the mechanism for dealing with an invasion by a foreign power? Defensive uses for the military do exist, after all. How do we deal with riots? How do paved roads and interstates get maintained?
You can't reform a system in any other way. You can overthrow a system without taking part in it, but reform is, by definition, from within the system.
Except that's not a real possibility. What is possible is that enough people will become angry enough to revolt, leading to a civil insurrection. That would be horrible, much worse than the current system where, sorry, you aren't allowed to have black tar heroin or assault rifles.
This is my problem with almost all Libertarian politics; they're all based on the idea that if you make an idea work in a reductionist model that doesn't take into account the complexities of the real world, it still counts as a valid politcal/economic theory. Or, in your case, that doesn't even take into account that there is NEVER a case where everyone agrees perfectly on what is right. It never really takes into account that, in an unbounded system, those who manage to seize power will abuse it.
I would assume that, if it was important, you'd want to treat it with seriousness and thought, rather than flippancy and sensationalism. Go on harming your credibility if you want to; I'd rather you failed to convince anyone anyway, since you hold beliefs I feel are harmful.
Sure I am. How so? Has throwing "rape" around resulted in acclaim, and massive converts for the libertarian cause?
Can you actually make a reasoned defense of the point behind what you're saying? Without using analogy? Because analogy doesn't actually work as proof; the only non-decorative purpose of analogies is to explain something, and we all understand the issues here well enough.
So how would you propose that government be funded? Barring that, how would you propose a society without government be run? What do you think is the proper action to take to correct these injustices you mention, without participating in said government at all, without voting or attempting to gain office and change from the inside?
What, exactly, save a series of grotesque analogies, are you contributing to discourse?
You've said very little, except that you want guns and drugs and that you don't want to pay taxes.
Please, amaze me. Or at least say ANYTHING that has one bit of substance, and has anything to do with fact, instead of cloaking your lack of ideas in sensationalist rhetoric.
I never said that you have no right to complain. I don't personally hold to that theory. I only said that your argument is juvenile and ill-thought out, and that your choice of analogy is inaccurate, callous, and disgusting.
Assuming that person can aim that gun well enough to hit a person sized target while under stress, and can prevent you from taking it away from them. And replacing "gun" with "baseball bat" gives the same result, by the way. Or knife, or any other weapon that doesn't rely on massive amounts of training to make it useful.
It's not that having a gun doesn't make someone more dangerous, it's that it doesn't make them equal to another person with a gun. It's not an equalizer, it's a tool that increases one's capacity for damaging violence.
Heh. I am going to need you to come in Sunday and fill out those TPS reports ;-)
Even given that he's an idiot, it says something that they chose an idiot to run for the highest office in the land. Either way, my point stands; the Republican party has been trumpeting "Anti-intellect" for years now.
Look. I don't know how to get this through, so I'll speak bluntly.
Your experience is nothing like rape in either kind or degree. It's a bad analogy in that it doesn't remotely relate, and it's a bad analogy in that it's insensitive to victims of a horrifying crime.
You are, of course, free to keep using it. But everyone who sees it is going to think less of you, and points you have that may be valid will be ignored because of it.
Look. If you don't like Obama, that's fine. If you don't like his platform, don't vote for him.
But calling him a socialist is either ignorance or deliberate falsehood. He's just not a socialist, and I say this without any judgments either way, having nothing particularly against socialists (Communists are another matter. Not a fan of Communism).
Stop buying into political smears, and start actually going through the platforms for facts, instead of spin.
Please, let me know what it is that I said (Use the friendly "Blockquote" tag, if you would) that is a demonstrable lie. I genuinely do not know what the hell you are talking about, unless it is my omitting the possible use of guns for hunting, which I have admitted was an oversight.
If that is the issue, an oversight is not a lie. It is a mistake. I am sure that you have made mistakes before, and would not think of calling you a liar on that basis.
I'm honestly bewildered here. Unless you have something to say that's not a personal attack, I will not respond to any more of your comments in this thread. I look forward to discussing with the original poster our differences of opinion and positions.
Please remember there are real people on both sides of the internet connection.
What is the source of this hostility? I'm not "lying," although perhaps I was unclear, and I do acknowledge that your correction as to the potential use of guns to hunt is accurate, although not really attached to the discussion at hand. I don't know how I've earned this hostility here.
Also, I'm a moderate Democrat (probably left of center on social issues).
Except replace "minority" with "sparsely settled geographic region."
I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.
I do thank you for an engaging discussion, though, and I feel I get your position better than I did before.
Just because something bad got written into the Constitution makes it better than something bad that didn't make it in? I think this is an especially interesting example, given that it was a compromise position not to specifically DISallow slaves in the Constitution.
The Constitution is amendable for a reason. "It had to be done that way several hundred years ago in order to reach consensus" isn't a strong enough argument for me, especially against "It's unjust right now."
As a result of living in the U.S. legally without the threat of deportation, you pay that tax. You pay it, regardless of voting.
And it's also used to keep roads viable, provide for education, and keep serial killers out of your backyard.
It's not a good metaphor, it's a heavily charged one that lets you be "shocking." It fails to actually forward your opinion or explain anything about what you actually believe is going on. And it keeps people from taking you seriously, and can even pre-dispose people to take the other side. If you actually care about the position you hold, you should drop the "rape" thing.
Alright, then, it's a "device intended to do harm at a distance." Regardless, there is a difference between something primarily designed as a weapon, and something that has harmful effects. His statement was, as best I can summarize it, is that "Guns are equivalent to cars in the danger they present, thus anyone who can be trusted with a car can be trusted with a gun." My main point is that it matters that the car has significant non-dangerous uses, but (in a city or town, anyway - hunting is besides the point for this discussion) guns do not. Harm from cars is predominantly accidental to a much greater extent than harm from guns. This is because guns exist to cause harm to people and/or animals. That's kind of what they do.
I'm not directly countering some of his statements, that's true. I've interacting with his statements, and having a discussion with him. Some people talk about things in more nuanced ways than "Fuck you, you're wrong."
I would also like to note that, except for the hunting statement, which is kind of bizarrely of-point and deals with a technicality more than the main thrust of my statement, you haven't countered my statement either. Instead, you've made a direct attack on me, based on two points of language.
I haven't ignored points that refute me... I haven't even had the chance. I replied to him, not the other way around.
Also, what are you even saying with the "Republican cohorts" line? I'm not even sure what you're trying for there.
So, because something is difficult to change, it's a waste of time to fight it?
Convenience over correctness is our current political disease, not something to be embraced.
Ahem. Demonstrably gameable. Just because we stopped them from kicking us, doesn't mean it's not a problem that they're kicking.
Rather, that's good if you live in a rural state. All of the things you've mentioned are tools for a minority to keep control over a majority. Not, in my mind, a good thing. And this is local control over non-local decisions. I totally understand why I have no vote in electing the Wyoming senate or government; they don't affect me as much as you. But the president affects every citizen equally. What did you, personally do, that makes you count more than me on a decision that affects us equally?
Yeah, but what's its goal now? What's its function now, except to create inequity in representation?
We don't change ideals to meet antique laws, we change laws to match current ideals.
Except that the 5th is, in fact, limited to testimonial evidence, and a passphrase is no more testimonial evidence than a safe combination. Just because you have to say it, doesn't make it testimony.
It doesn't "morally" justify it, but it does in fact justify it as legally correct. At this point, I'm not arguing about right and wrong, but about whether something is legal.
Secondly, well, there may not be direct, per-viewing harm, but anyone who is a consumer of child pornography is essentially concealing a source of child pornography, unless they are doing so openly. Even without a direct profit chain, they are still thus contributing to the sexual exploitation of children.
I'm not quoting it, but the "is it viewing, or just having it" question is simply answered, because it is a felony to possess child pornography. There was a recent case in Tampa, for instance, where a lawyer, holding onto a tape of an under-18 girl filmed for a girls-gone-wild type video, was arrested for having possession of child pornography. I know this partly because the guy owed my mom money (unrelated) ;-)
I'm not sure I buy this. It's as bad to mess up a conviction accidentally as to rape a child and film it? Only in a world where every single fault has equal weight.
And again; no legal system ever extant will ever manage a 100% accuracy rate. It's just not possible. The only way to never accidentally harm innocents is to not have any justice system or police. And that hurts everyone, far, far worse than even a fairly corrupt system of courts.
That isn't to say that we don't need sweeping reforms, or that we don't have large problems. We do, and we do. But this isn't one of those problems. Assuming (and we are, again, because it's outside the scope of the argument) that probable cause exists and is sound, there's no good reason that a court can't demand a passphrase on a drive that is known to belong to the suspect.
Does Wyoming have the resources to exist outside the framework of the U.S.? Does Wyoming fail to benefit from being a part of the U.S. without the electoral college? Is this a fair deal now?
Southern states joined the U.S.A. under the understanding that they could hold slaves.
There come times in the course of history where the agreement between populace and government (and between government and subservient governments) have to be renegotiated. Injustice is the best cause for such I can imagine.
Yeaaaah... That's not how it works, remotely. Welfare doesn't pay out equal to a living wage, and doesn't remotely cover the expense of maintaining a child.
The fact remains, welfare isn't actually a significant drain on the average taxpayer. Social security, maybe, but social security benefits are specifically not based on poverty, and you stand to benefit from them as much as anyone else.
Reagan actually made up the example he used when he coined the term, and the fact is, while welfare fraud does exist, it's never been the TERRIFYING HORROR DISEASE that alarmist rhetoric has made it out to be.
Also, through both community work and less fortunate family members, I can tell you for certain that that is not how HUD housing works. The income does scale, but even with extremely low income (my mother has no steady work, my brother unemployed), they pay $750 in rent per month. Add to that that, if they find work that brings them up to the poverty line (collectively, not singly), they have to move out.
I very much hate to say this, but you are uninformed. Do actual research. If you're interested, I can find the names of good books on the subject for you; I don't have them off the top of my head.