Assuming this policy making board gets what they want... either that the foundation becomes licensed to do business in California as a financial transaction agency (aka a "bribe" as it means the policy board collects some additional revenue) or the foundation is shut down.
What exactly do they think is going to happen if the foundation is shut down? That the software will stop being used or that nobody will be distributing Bitcoin clients? For something published under the GPL?
That is like saying the author of "The Anarchist Handbook" is liable for somebody building a bomb after being "inspired by" the book. Or similar kinds of actions. I suppose some guys in Hollywood have had lawsuits over various suicides and other nonsense.... and those lawsuits just get thrown out as well.
Your comment about the 3D printed guns is hardly a good reference as well since that has yet to work its way through the judicial system. While it is a "roll of the dice" in terms of what the final outcome might be, there have been numerous situations where the law meets new disruptive technologies. California is in a slightly better situation than most in terms of having to cope with advanced technology and its impact upon legal principles, but there still are a whole bunch of Luddites that lurk in the shadows trying to jump onto anything that seems new or innovative.
In regards to Bitcoins, I think the big deal may be for those who are users of the software and may be liable under this particular law. I have a feeling that would just introduce a sort of Barbara Streisand effect into the debate with thousands of Californians who will purposely download the software just to "stick it to the man" and open the whole thing into a major political debate that will ultimately need to be resolved by the state legislature (with consequences at the ballot box for missteps). I can only imagine the 1st amendment issues alone that might be brought up if a particular piece of software is declared illegal simply because of its protocol. The Federal government tried that with calling some types of software as a "munition" and therefore couldn't be exported (like PGP and the related GPG), but in the long run ordinary citizens weren't prosecuted either, certainly not on a widespread basis. I have a hard time seeing that happen in the case of Bitcoin being something new.
On the contrary.... it is simply people who have ignored the traditions and constitution of America. Yes, there is a strong tendency toward centralization (not just in the military.... but in all aspects of government). There certainly are tyrants who want to ignore those governing documents and insist upon moving that decision making authority to as few people as possible and growing the Presidency to the point that a mere "executive order" can act as if it was legislation or even impact the lives of ordinary citizens.
The 2nd Amendment was intended to be a check on that centralization tendency as ordinary citizens in mundane groups free of that central authority can and will act on behalf of its citizens to stop blatant abuses of a federal army upon the local communities. The federal army legitimately puts a check to make sure the local militia doesn't go sacking a neighboring town or state either, so it goes both ways.
Perhaps I'm demanding that constitutional check be put back. The arguments about gun control seem to center on the role that lone nut jobs might be doing when they get turned loose in civilian populations as well as criminal elements who use guns to commit crimes that most people really do think deserve to be felonies (aka rape, murder, grand theft, and treason). All of the arguments if favor of gun control simply don't apply to local militias, and I think you would be very hard pressed to find a whole militia unit turned rogue with the exception of the U.S. Civil War. I'm also suggesting that the U.S. Constitution has not been changed... in spite of your claim to the contrary. Those soldiers who served in the Spanish-American War and the U.S. Civil War certainly did not "vote" to revoke the 2nd Amendment, even if the "system" did change to consider a more centralized authority.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff are there to say what should be done once the decision to go to war has been made, not to make the decision to start a war. I'm even fine with that, as a country at war needs some sort of central authority and why the decision to go to war is one that a republic should be very careful and deliberative about. I just disagree that somebody like the President should send troops to a place like Syria without explicit authorization in the form of a declaration of war by Congress. State governors should also be reluctant to send their state militias into harm's way if "authorizations of the use of force" are vague and based upon weak premises. There certainly was enough opposition to the Iraq War (sometimes called "Gulf War II") that I doubt such a war declaration would have been successful and certainly several governors suggested they really wanted to stop their guard units from going to Iraq due to that popular sentiment against the war. That it didn't happen shows a break down in constitutional authority and ignoring the constitution altogether.
The role of the National Guard to be able to fight in Iraq came directly from the legislation of the "authorization of the use of force" declaration by Congress shortly after 9/11. Prior to that, the National Guard was supposedly prohibited on a constitutional basis and legal basis from serving in that capacity. This is also one of the reasons why National Guard units didn't serve in Vietnam, as it wasn't a formally declared war and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution didn't give authorization to call up the state militias.
I also have a problem with the organization of the National Guard.... so far as having guard units as the only form of state militias. They have "dual oaths" that they must take, where they are in reality under the direct chain of command of the U.S. President and not the respective state governors with the state governors only exercising authority in a sort of "dotted line" capacity that is mostly titular as a practical matter. Governors can order the National Guard to perform acts of service to the respective state.... but the biggest catch is that the state government must pay for the use of guard units if they are in state service. As a practical matter, most of the activities of guard units are paid for with federal funds, thus are mostly on duty as federal troops. To show an example of this, ask a guardsman how they treat the federal flag as opposed to the state flag.... of the state they are serving. By far they will show utmost respect and courtesy to the federal flag, but the state flag they will wad up and toss into a bin when they take it down and certainly not even close to the same level of respect. That speaks volumes about who really is in charge.
That is not the organization that was envisioned under the 2nd Amendment when it was put forth. It was to allow citizens to form voluntary associations for common defense... both for protecting "borders" or the "frontier" as well as to keep ruffians at bay within their respective communities (including out of control federal agents). In earlier times all it would take for a group of citizens to form a militia was to get a couple dozen concerned citizens together (the exact number varied by respective state laws) and then they could petition the state legislature for a charter to become a recognized militia. Often they would even pay for their own uniforms and weapons, but would use rank structures and training methods as described by the federal government. Officers of those militias had to be commissioned by the state legislatures (with recommendations by the militia in question), but the federal government otherwise had no role at all.
Speaking about the Massachusetts state militias, the 182nd Infantry Regiment traces its heritage back to the colonial militia nearly a century before the Revolutionary War. I'm sure they have weapons a bit better than Nerf guns, although it suffers from the other issues of National Guard units at the moment.
Again, I'm not advocating that the National Guard be eliminated, but I think there is a role for state militia units which are outside of that structure and answer directly to the state governors and legislatures. My reading of the 2nd Amendment (and other amendments like the 10th) seems to suggest that the federal government couldn't even constitutionally stop such militias from forming and that gun control laws would definitely not apply on the federal level to stop what those militia units could be using. Heck, I'm not even sure that a federal law prohibiting a state militia from controlling nukes could be constitutional... even if I think that would be a stupid thing for a state militia to be messing with. At the very least, if gun rights are being taken away from ordinary citizens, these alterna
During the Indian Wars, the federal army was usually about 30,000 or so soldiers strong. They were mostly a frontier border guard during that time, even though as you pointed out it led to several misadventures which can be compared to the current "war on terrorism" that supposedly is taking place. It should also be pointed out that the "Indian Wars" took place within the claimed territory of the United States of America and not in other countries (with a few exceptions that wandered into Canada and Mexico... but still very close to the border.
Perhaps the campaign by John Pershing prior to World War I when he was hunting down Pancho Vila could be compared to the current campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, but again it was mostly done within U.S. territory and occasional border crossings that could even be considered a territory dispute. That is quite a bit different than going across oceans and mountain ranges far from American territory.
Yes, the U.S. Civil War was a major game changer in American history, and in some ways it was the death of the "Old Republic" that was in existence earlier. Still, after the Civil War the U.S. federal army was significantly reduced back to the small number that existed previously. The same thing happened with the Spanish-American War (since you mention it) where the army grew to a rather large size with state militias filling in the ranks and then the army was subsequently reduced to a very small size afterward on the federal level. It wasn't until after World War II and the rationalization that happened during the Cold War that kept the U.S. military, and especially the U.S. Army, at large staffing levels on essentially a permanent basis.
It should also be pointed out the SpanAm War was formally declared by an act of Congress (it passed both houses... the Senate for the actual declaration and the House for appropriations to make it happen and pay for the war). It also received generally popular support among the American people prior to that war actually happening. My point is that in order to send such an army off to battle you need to get a whole bunch of people to agree to that war prior to the conflict instead of that being the decision of a small group like the Joint Chiefs of Staff or even just the President. Sure, you can get the country whipped into a war frenzy for doing something that may be stupid, but at least you got that popular support and a country committed to seeing the war through to a final conclusion. It is also something that would happen much less often rather than the current misadventures that seem to happen every five years or so on and off during the last half of the 20th Century and into the 21st Century.
You also seem to have missed the point that soldiers are controlled by more than one person. Under the earlier "state militia" model, the President couldn't call up those soldiers except in declared war or other "national emergencies". That keeps them from being used except in extreme situations and forces the decision making process to commit those soldiers to be done by a large number of people and ultimately get the support of even state legislatures before it happens. That isn't going to be done on a whim or to further the political ambitions of a particular politician... as does currently happen. Sure, you get assholes like General George A. Custer who parade around and perform military actions for political purposes (and ultimately died because of that), Still, if Custer had tried to mess around in Texas and start killing off "white" towns.... he would have met the Texas militias and threats of secession all over again. He didn't have the authority nor did the President have the authority to try a stunt like that.
The real point of the 2nd Amendment was two fold. First of all, it openly acknowledged that the real justification and authority of government is derived from the arms that government is able to field. If you start to defy that government, you rather quickly get a show of arms of some manner which reminds you who has the real authority. Allowing ordinary citizens to possess those arms sort of levels that playing field.
The other is a more general theme that is pervasive throughout the U.S. Constitution, which is that political power should not be concentrated in the hands of just one person or even a small group of people. The more you can push decision making out to larger groups of people the better off everybody becomes and in general you have more liberty if not one single person or a small group can make decisions on your behalf. This goes to a limited presidency who can't even create laws himself, a Congress that in itself has very limited authority to act where most of the real decision making was supposed to be handled by a distributed group of decision makers known as state legislators.
This gets into the role of the militia, where the military authority would be similarly distributed widely and not be concentrated in the hands of just a select few people. Generals weren't trusted, and it was presumed that every community would have their own "militia" made up of concerned citizens who would generally be protecting themselves against local threats or needs. Yes, if there was a need for mobilization on a national level those various militia groups could be organized or "regulated" on a federal level and pressed into national service, but that was presumed to be a rare event and something that generally required a formal declaration of war (a power given explicitly to congress and congress alone). A national army was permitted, but was generally intended to be quite small.
As a matter of practice, the national army was kept small throughout most of American history... with only the events subsequent to World War II that the U.S. Army in "peacetime" was ever kept at more than about 50,000 soldiers. Every major war previously including World War II itself had the national army formed by requesting assistance from the states to "donate" their militias to help grow the national army with just a small cadre of permanent soldiers who formed the core of that national army.
I seriously doubt that the misadventures subsequent to World War II would have happened had the national army been small. This includes the fiascos in places like the Balkans, Beirut (on multiple occasions), Vietnam, and Afghanistan (which might have been justified in terms of a formal declaration of war... but that would have at least brought some deliberation into the process). I seriously doubt that the U.S. Army would have ever been in Iraq if they had to depend on an army of about 30-50,000 soldiers as the whole of the U.S. Army.
This diffuse authority where there would be literally thousands of individual militias was the primary check against an over zealous federal government. If individual rights were being trampled to death and there was a real danger of the federal government over reaching its authority, it would be the collective nature of those militias that could certainly cause real concern to the federal army.
Mind you, I'm not even remotely arguing the individual possession of firearms here and I am suggesting that individual states can "regulate" how those militias are formed within their respective states. I personally think that states should license and charter individual militias subject to their state constitutions and be free to do that as much as they care without interference from the federal government. Those charters can be granted to groups of citizens that may not even be necessarily receiving tax dollars but instead can be completely voluntary groups operating on their own funds if necessary. Furthermore, I don't think that the "National Guard" should be the only milit
You really do miss the point. At least in America, if you are not a 501 (c) 3 or other legally defined non-profit corporation, you simply can't have volunteers performing tasks that could be performed by an employee, subject to direct supervision with the option of "termination" if you fail to perform those tasks. In other words, if the CEO of that company asks "I want you to make that widget" or do some other task, they must be paid. period.
Read that link. It is quite important.
Internships in "information technology" positions have even tighter restrictions, and for the most part must be paid by the hour with completely separate minimum wage laws that apply just to that industry.
The judicial ruling in the original post does suggest that "other considerations" could apply in the case of internships, if there was something of a course of study or other significant exchange of value was taking place for the interns. In the case of the judge's ruling in the original post, I think he got the law correct so far as being a general gopher and not really learning or doing tasks that represent a real learning experience for the intern could also not be considered a legitimate course of study.
I might accept the argument that some minor regulations might need to be imposed upon contracts in situations where common exploits cause harm to private individuals. For example, a clause that would impress either yourself or your family into literal slavery ought to be considered null and void in a judicial system, as should any clause that requires you to commit a felony of some sort (aka grand theft, rape, murder, or even suicide). I do agree that some minimal code of laws ought to be established which are clearly understood by all and applied equally to all citizens, as well as equally enforced.
Heck, I think if a law hasn't been enforced for a given period of time (say about 20 years or so), it should be declared null and void in a legal system. Furthermore, if a law is unequally applied and evidence can be presented as a defense that a prosecutor knowingly has not been enforcing a law when clear evidence is available for prosecution of that same law as applied to others, that it can be used in a courtroom as justification for a substantially reduced sentence from any statutory requirements or even declared obsolete and invalid as well. That would get rid of the supposed plethora of laws where every citizen commits several felonies every day simply due to ordinary day to day living... citizens who generally are trying to live an ethical lifestyle and are generally considered productive members of society.
For myself, I happen to be a limited government libertarian (I'll admit it) who thinks there is a role for government but it should be significantly restricted and kept in check from growing. I agree that you need to have the rule of law. I certainly don't subscribe to the philosophy of completely anarchy as the ultimate state of human condition as that will ultimately be compromised by bullies and tyrants, just as you have pointed out. Such a small government with minimal laws did exist in America once upon a time, but it doesn't exist here now, nor do I know of a place in the world where it does exist either.
Faulty premise. Government run by the people will shut things like this down. Government run by profiteers will find a way to keep the gravy boat running.
Name a federal agency that has been created in the past 50 years that has been shut down? Heck, can you name one in the history of the American Republic? I can think of a few that no longer exist, but those merely changed their name from one thing to another and kept the bureaucrats on board like INS is now ICE and the Maritime Revenue Service is now the U.S. Coast Guard.
About the only federal projects that I am aware of that actually have shut down are things like the X-projects in the U.S. military. Heck, the Apollo project still has funding in the FY2013 budget, and NASA certainly hasn't gone away since it put people on the Moon.
Perhaps from the whole of human history you can name a few, but I would point out those are incredible exceptions unless something like war, famine, or extreme economic circumstances happen such as what happened to some of the bureaucracies of ancient Egypt or Rome. It certainly doesn't happen on the scale of private companies going bankrupt or for that matter even private charities going bankrupt and shutting down their programs. Bureaucracies, once established, never go away.
Not really, those that believe in Libertarianism are generally not aware of what it's like to live under totalitarianism. Because then they would understand the difference between what we have in the US and totalitarianism.
Is there a difference today? The consolidation of political power in America is happening at a breath taking pace and the loss of liberties in recent years is as much as I've ever seen happen in my reading of history. I hope it will be reversed soon, but so far I don't hold out much hope.
I'm also curious about who you consider to be the most "libertarian-minded people in Congress"? There are people who have fought against SOPA, NDAA, and other alphabet soup legislation initiatives, but I suppose that a vote against those kind of bills is what you consider to be a loss of liberty? My own experience is that the number of people in Congress who are "libertarian-minded" is damn few to do much of anything, and the few who are there frequently compromise their values for more immediate political issues at hand.
No we can't. Charity is not new. It has never been successful or effective.
Correction: It has never been successful nor effective when competing against a government agency which is doing the same thing, even if the government agency is doing a much more inferior job at trying to help in that niche.
There definitely have been very successful private "charities" who have done a whole lot of good and are very well managed as well (aka most of the "donations" are used for the programs which the charity is involved with and helps most of the people they are trying to service). Otherwise, it is a matter of competition of the free market if some charity group is doing a lousy job as frequently competing charitable groups will arise if the needs aren't being met.
One thing to consider is if the goals of a charitable group have been met (aka eradicating a disease like Small Pox), a private charity group is likely to go away. A government agency on the other hand will stick around and even grow in spite of the fact that the reason for its existence is no longer relevant. That government agency may even resort to actions many would be considered unethical to ensure continued existence like finding a vial of the Small Pox virus used for research purposes and deliberately spreading that disease around in order to continue the organization.
Your complaint here about how long judgement takes through a judiciary system is more of a complaint of that judiciary system itself and not a rational rebuttal to the use of a referee who acts on a consistent set of rules to make judgements.
I will be the first to admit that the judiciary system in most "western" countries is awful at best to demonic or worse and is lucky if ordinary people can occasionally achieve redresses for their grievances as currently set up. That it takes years or longer to get a reasonable judgement that sticks only shows that the system is explicitly set up for the rich and well connected and likely needs to be rethought as a concept.
One of the reasons for a slow and deliberative judiciary is that far too often quick judgements frequently are wrong and punish the innocent. On the other hand, you can and often do find people who will be willing to serve as an arbitrator helping to make quick decisions.... where their decisions may be reviewed by a much more deliberative process later if there might be some impropriety in their decision making. Sports referees are a good example of this, where they can and do make quick decisions in the matter of mere seconds that can have a significant impact either on the game or even careers of those involved (in the case of professional sports). Similar arbitrators can be found on floors of stock exchanges, and there is no reason why you couldn't have an employment arbitrator that could make a decision in a matter of days regarding a well crafted employment law helping to resolve disputes between an employer and their employees. Indeed I think more of that should be happening.
No, I don't like "binding arbitration" without any possibility of appeal, as that is usually a rigged system to benefit one particular party over another and the weaker party is held at a significant disadvantage when that happens.
The other things you are complaining about is a screwed up rule making process where somebody has been given a significant advantage through cronyism and rules that recognize some people are better than others and thus have a specific legal advantage. It is also decidedly a situation where there is a lack of liberty and consistency in the law where rules are not equally enforced on everybody. By definition, that is corruption and not a free society.
By calling it "the state", you have automatically fiddled with the words to throw it out of recognition. It is the government we are talking about, and by definition a government is an enemy of liberty almost by its inception. Its very existence is founded upon people giving up at least some liberties in order to allow somebody to be in a position of governing... either a king, president, mayor, or judge. "The State" really doesn't exist except as an abstract concept convenient to extract even more liberties from you and to explicitly turn you into a slave with no liberties except for what "The State" has granted. By using that term, you are presupposing that "The State" has existence and authority granted anciently by presumably a divine being (even in a communist country... as a paradox I suppose) that somehow is the fountain of all life.
In reality, governments get their authority based upon what people, very ordinary people, have given that government. Sometimes it is a "tough guy" that has a nice sword or a fancy gun and is no different from a grade school bully, sometimes they are one of the "popular kids" that is now a fair bit older and has the support of many others. Words mean things, and the government is not "The State". It is merely a group of people who for whatever reason, luck or circumstances, ended up in a position of authority. That government sometimes controls some real estate as well in terms of noting who can inhabit that real estate, but it is still a committee or person who runs that government. They are the ones making the decisions.
Abstracting that concept using terms like "The State" act to absolve the unethical decisions of that committee which is the government says volumes about the current problems facing most people in the world today. That the committee which is the government may do a lousy job of protecting liberties and attempt to enslave their citizens may be true, and that only goes to show that committee might need to be replaced or eliminated. Eventually it likely will be in the long run.... or the citizens may simply "vote with their feet" and try to leave (a good sign that the government is doing a lousy job).
In most cases "regulation" implies a government "granting favors" or "picking winners and losers". At best what a government can do is to simply make sure that any rule making is applied consistently and equally to everybody. It is preferable that the rules which are created are kept few in number.... so that everybody in a market or for that matter in society can actually comprehend what it is that they are supposed to do and not do. When rules are created, the best rules are ones established because somebody screwed up and most of that society agrees that the screw up shouldn't happen again.
Unfortunately most of the time rules are made by legislators (however you define that term) simply because they have the authority to make rules and want to exercise that authority for the sake of exercising that power. It is when rules are established for the sake of simply establishing a new rule or to deliberately skew a market or society making things unequal is when you get tyranny and slavery.
What you are saying is that the government has the authority to force, at gunpoint, how you should think about things like race relations. BTW, your analogy with the gay/lesbian persecution is a bad one as it is commonly being used as a "protected minority". What would be a better analogy is somebody from a non-protect sub-group like a Justin Bieber fan being fired because they happen to wear a T-shirt with his picture on it before they changed into their work uniform. Or a Star Trek fan being fired by a boss who hates that TV series and movies.
The best thing that the government can do in that situation is to simply stay out of people's faces and let them do whatever it is that they are doing. If you have a jerk for a boss, the best thing to do is to move on and find another place to work.... or better yet be permitted (mostly by the government not getting in your way to stop you) to start your own competing business knowing full well that your former boss is likely going to have inferior employees due to his removing employees for reasons other than incompetence. That is the real point of freedom and liberty.
Otherwise it is an issue of contract law as there likely was some sort of employment contract when somebody was hired. If the supervisor screwed up and violated the terms of that contract by terminating the employee.... they should be held accountable and deal with penalties in that contract. But it is still an issue of free association... a "right" that you apparently don't think should exist.
While jury nullification on a very rare occasion has been used to absolve idiots who committed atrocities due to their "position" in the local community, I think it is much more likely that some "good old boy" would simply not be prosecuted. More importantly, and what the GP was trying to point out, you are noting corruption that really is unethical and wrong.
Considering that a random selection in a jury is likely going to get at least a few black people in the deep south, I highly doubt that "blowing up a church with black girls in it" will end up with a not guilty verdict. It might end up as a hung jury with a couple of klansmen in the jury pool, but that simply implies the trial will be repeated again... especially with a murder on the line. Certainly not in the 21st Century where killing those girls would be sensationalized and any juror attempting to be so blatant as to try nullification would likely be hunted down at gunpoint and needing police protection for sheer survival if the evidence was overwhelming.
There might still be a few racist bigots in the deep south today, but they don't really control the reins of government in the south any more. Yes, there are some towns that you need to be wary of if you are black and you should show extra respect to the local law enforcement, but you can't get away with the crap like used to happen in the past.
So you found a couple of people who were pieces of shit that happened to be also attending a "Tea Party" rally. It should be pointed out that most of those gatherings were open to anybody willing to listen, and that included nut jobs, communists, professional agitators who didn't give a damn about freedom, liberal wannabes who were openly trying to paint the rally as something it wasn't, and a whole bunch of just ordinary people who didn't like the direction that America was going and wanted to express some outrage about things happening in America.
That you discovered racism hasn't been eliminated from America should hardly be news, and it hasn't been that long since Rosa Parks was arrested for sitting in the wrong place on a bus because of her skin color. I hope things have improved a bit over the years, but there still are jerks to be found anywhere. I guess you found some from random people you met in your town and that is too bad, but shouldn't be surprising.
Inferring what a few idiots were saying that may not even believe in the goals of the founders of these Tea Party rallies simply can't be used as a stereotype of what most of those attending really thought. It would be a completely different story if they say "wetback, return to Mexico" from the podium and essentially holding a Klan rally complete with the white sheets being worn by a number of the speakers at the rally. I seriously doubt you ever saw that, and indeed most of those who would organize such a rally would be horrified if anybody even thought to say something like that before the crowd and might even be immediately denounced for saying that. For you to "hear" somebody say a racist slur out of a random group of a hundred or more people, especially in the old south, should hardly be surprising either. You might likely find the same thing visiting your local Wal-Mart or grocery store as well.
You can also look at Martha Stewart. She wasn't under oath; lied to an officer about something that wasn't a crime and was sent to prison.
I thought that was still under appeal, and furthermore it wasn't just misleading a police officer, she was imprisoned in part because she abused her position of trust and fiduciary responsibility. Because of her positions and things she was specifically put in charge of (as a member of the NYSE board of trustees and as a CEO of her own corporation) she was held to a much higher standard for the kinds of questions she was asked and was expected to give honest replies... something she failed to do when the time came.
That this high standard is seldom applied to the leading executives of major corporations should be something of a concern and shows how screwed up the criminal justice system is when prosecutors seldom apply these high standards that should apply doesn't absolve the complaint made about Martha Stewart. You are also bringing up a situation that mere ordinary people who don't get into that kind of position of trust overseeing the money of millions of people will never see in their lifetime.
In the case of Martha Stewart, even responding "I don't know" was not appropriate.
They asked for a summary in part because the original post suggested that posts which pointed to a source and didn't give a summary or at least make a meaningful discussion was silly and something that should be called out as a failed reply and something to be torn apart. That your summary showed it wasn't even on topic should be furthermore ripped apart.
Recycling content from automobiles is one of the best recycling options you can get, where most automobiles are recycled not just down to their raw components but often even machined parts are reused on more than one vehicle before they finally are worthless. While disposing of automobiles does cost some money, it definitely is cheaper to smelt down cars and trucks into raw steel or other metals (like Platinum from the catalytic converters and Copper from the electrical systems) than it is to pull those metals from the ground.
Very seldom does an automobile end up in a landfill just occupying space, unlike disposable diapers.
This is so true. If I saw Elon Musk moving into an industry I was involved with more directly, I would either try to send a resume off to his new company or start thinking about how to become a major competitor with Musk providing very stiff competition in hopes that my company could survive the fall-out.
Toyota saw that with Tesla and decided to invest into Tesla instead. That is also sort of the reason why Tesla has the old NUMMI plant.
I definitely agree that we'd be better off with a number of smaller countries. I'd love to see the US split into 5 or more independent republics.
At least then the national government of each would be much more representative of the population.
That was sort of the point of state governments in the first place.... until people like Abraham Lincoln screwed it up and turned America from a confederation into a strong centralized government. That is sort of the grinding axe on the part of the south-eastern states in America, where they were supposed to be independent republics with only a loose confederation that addressed very narrow and specific "national" needs on the "federal" level.
It has been misuse of things like the "interstate commerce clause" and even more blatant stamping out of individual state identities which has caused the bloat that we know today as the U.S. federal government. It is so bad that most people I've ever met seem to even forget there are state governments at all.
The big change happened when people stopped talking about "the United States are" and began saying "the United States is". That happened about 1860.
Anybody who talks about what constitutional authority Abraham Lincoln had to force at gunpoint the states of the south-east USA to remain part of the union can pervert that same logic to do pretty much anything they want including building concentration camps for specific ethnic minorities, religious groups, and conduct wholesale genocide of any group that those in power deem as unfit for whatever reason. BTW, all of that has been done in America by the U.S. federal government in the past, and is only inferior to Mao and Stalin (much less Hitler) simply because the scale of the genocide wasn't usually as massive. Supposedly that is something that happened in our distant past, but do you want to stick your neck out and find out if it is still being done?
You can petition and send letters to elected representatives. That doesn't mean they have to listen to you or think you are anything but a kook.
A large number of letters might give them reason to pause. Showing that you have a group of people who are going to submit a name to run against that representative in the next election cycle.... but that working with the group might just get them to endorse that current politician instead is much more likely to get his attention.
I met with one (admittedly not Austrialian... but that doesn't matter in this context) lawmaker who was well established and had seniority to do pretty much whatever he wanted... and likely able to get most legislation he submitted to even pass as he was in the majority party. His attitude towards law enforcement was that he would submit any legislation and do whatever it is that the law enforcement community asked him to do... essentially giving them a blank check on creating and passing laws.
Seriously, it isn't all that hard to get a strong "conservative" or "law and order" legislator/member of parliament to meet in a conference with a group of police chiefs or representatives of police departments and write up legislation that will help make their lives "easier", especially if passing certain laws can get more things done for the government. The only thing stopping such legislation from being written is a set of rules like a "bill of rights" that explicitly prohibits legislators from making such laws, and even then it is merely a speed bump as opposed to a way to stop such legislation unless citizens start to push back real hard.
For something like a firearm made from a 3D printer, since it is so new and something easily demonized as ordinary citizens or even "gun rights" groups could care less about... or especially because most gun manufacturers wouldn't mind getting rid of a potential competitor getting started with 3D printers.... this kind of legislation would be a cake walk to get at least submitted and introduced into any legislative chamber with considerable support on its passage. Getting some police unions agreeing with the upper brass that something like this needs to be created as law almost guarantees that it will happen.
Slashdot Mirror
Assuming this policy making board gets what they want... either that the foundation becomes licensed to do business in California as a financial transaction agency (aka a "bribe" as it means the policy board collects some additional revenue) or the foundation is shut down.
What exactly do they think is going to happen if the foundation is shut down? That the software will stop being used or that nobody will be distributing Bitcoin clients? For something published under the GPL?
That is like saying the author of "The Anarchist Handbook" is liable for somebody building a bomb after being "inspired by" the book. Or similar kinds of actions. I suppose some guys in Hollywood have had lawsuits over various suicides and other nonsense.... and those lawsuits just get thrown out as well.
Your comment about the 3D printed guns is hardly a good reference as well since that has yet to work its way through the judicial system. While it is a "roll of the dice" in terms of what the final outcome might be, there have been numerous situations where the law meets new disruptive technologies. California is in a slightly better situation than most in terms of having to cope with advanced technology and its impact upon legal principles, but there still are a whole bunch of Luddites that lurk in the shadows trying to jump onto anything that seems new or innovative.
In regards to Bitcoins, I think the big deal may be for those who are users of the software and may be liable under this particular law. I have a feeling that would just introduce a sort of Barbara Streisand effect into the debate with thousands of Californians who will purposely download the software just to "stick it to the man" and open the whole thing into a major political debate that will ultimately need to be resolved by the state legislature (with consequences at the ballot box for missteps). I can only imagine the 1st amendment issues alone that might be brought up if a particular piece of software is declared illegal simply because of its protocol. The Federal government tried that with calling some types of software as a "munition" and therefore couldn't be exported (like PGP and the related GPG), but in the long run ordinary citizens weren't prosecuted either, certainly not on a widespread basis. I have a hard time seeing that happen in the case of Bitcoin being something new.
On the contrary.... it is simply people who have ignored the traditions and constitution of America. Yes, there is a strong tendency toward centralization (not just in the military.... but in all aspects of government). There certainly are tyrants who want to ignore those governing documents and insist upon moving that decision making authority to as few people as possible and growing the Presidency to the point that a mere "executive order" can act as if it was legislation or even impact the lives of ordinary citizens.
The 2nd Amendment was intended to be a check on that centralization tendency as ordinary citizens in mundane groups free of that central authority can and will act on behalf of its citizens to stop blatant abuses of a federal army upon the local communities. The federal army legitimately puts a check to make sure the local militia doesn't go sacking a neighboring town or state either, so it goes both ways.
Perhaps I'm demanding that constitutional check be put back. The arguments about gun control seem to center on the role that lone nut jobs might be doing when they get turned loose in civilian populations as well as criminal elements who use guns to commit crimes that most people really do think deserve to be felonies (aka rape, murder, grand theft, and treason). All of the arguments if favor of gun control simply don't apply to local militias, and I think you would be very hard pressed to find a whole militia unit turned rogue with the exception of the U.S. Civil War. I'm also suggesting that the U.S. Constitution has not been changed... in spite of your claim to the contrary. Those soldiers who served in the Spanish-American War and the U.S. Civil War certainly did not "vote" to revoke the 2nd Amendment, even if the "system" did change to consider a more centralized authority.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff are there to say what should be done once the decision to go to war has been made, not to make the decision to start a war. I'm even fine with that, as a country at war needs some sort of central authority and why the decision to go to war is one that a republic should be very careful and deliberative about. I just disagree that somebody like the President should send troops to a place like Syria without explicit authorization in the form of a declaration of war by Congress. State governors should also be reluctant to send their state militias into harm's way if "authorizations of the use of force" are vague and based upon weak premises. There certainly was enough opposition to the Iraq War (sometimes called "Gulf War II") that I doubt such a war declaration would have been successful and certainly several governors suggested they really wanted to stop their guard units from going to Iraq due to that popular sentiment against the war. That it didn't happen shows a break down in constitutional authority and ignoring the constitution altogether.
The role of the National Guard to be able to fight in Iraq came directly from the legislation of the "authorization of the use of force" declaration by Congress shortly after 9/11. Prior to that, the National Guard was supposedly prohibited on a constitutional basis and legal basis from serving in that capacity. This is also one of the reasons why National Guard units didn't serve in Vietnam, as it wasn't a formally declared war and the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution didn't give authorization to call up the state militias.
I also have a problem with the organization of the National Guard.... so far as having guard units as the only form of state militias. They have "dual oaths" that they must take, where they are in reality under the direct chain of command of the U.S. President and not the respective state governors with the state governors only exercising authority in a sort of "dotted line" capacity that is mostly titular as a practical matter. Governors can order the National Guard to perform acts of service to the respective state.... but the biggest catch is that the state government must pay for the use of guard units if they are in state service. As a practical matter, most of the activities of guard units are paid for with federal funds, thus are mostly on duty as federal troops. To show an example of this, ask a guardsman how they treat the federal flag as opposed to the state flag.... of the state they are serving. By far they will show utmost respect and courtesy to the federal flag, but the state flag they will wad up and toss into a bin when they take it down and certainly not even close to the same level of respect. That speaks volumes about who really is in charge.
That is not the organization that was envisioned under the 2nd Amendment when it was put forth. It was to allow citizens to form voluntary associations for common defense... both for protecting "borders" or the "frontier" as well as to keep ruffians at bay within their respective communities (including out of control federal agents). In earlier times all it would take for a group of citizens to form a militia was to get a couple dozen concerned citizens together (the exact number varied by respective state laws) and then they could petition the state legislature for a charter to become a recognized militia. Often they would even pay for their own uniforms and weapons, but would use rank structures and training methods as described by the federal government. Officers of those militias had to be commissioned by the state legislatures (with recommendations by the militia in question), but the federal government otherwise had no role at all.
Speaking about the Massachusetts state militias, the 182nd Infantry Regiment traces its heritage back to the colonial militia nearly a century before the Revolutionary War. I'm sure they have weapons a bit better than Nerf guns, although it suffers from the other issues of National Guard units at the moment.
Again, I'm not advocating that the National Guard be eliminated, but I think there is a role for state militia units which are outside of that structure and answer directly to the state governors and legislatures. My reading of the 2nd Amendment (and other amendments like the 10th) seems to suggest that the federal government couldn't even constitutionally stop such militias from forming and that gun control laws would definitely not apply on the federal level to stop what those militia units could be using. Heck, I'm not even sure that a federal law prohibiting a state militia from controlling nukes could be constitutional... even if I think that would be a stupid thing for a state militia to be messing with. At the very least, if gun rights are being taken away from ordinary citizens, these alterna
During the Indian Wars, the federal army was usually about 30,000 or so soldiers strong. They were mostly a frontier border guard during that time, even though as you pointed out it led to several misadventures which can be compared to the current "war on terrorism" that supposedly is taking place. It should also be pointed out that the "Indian Wars" took place within the claimed territory of the United States of America and not in other countries (with a few exceptions that wandered into Canada and Mexico... but still very close to the border.
Perhaps the campaign by John Pershing prior to World War I when he was hunting down Pancho Vila could be compared to the current campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, but again it was mostly done within U.S. territory and occasional border crossings that could even be considered a territory dispute. That is quite a bit different than going across oceans and mountain ranges far from American territory.
Yes, the U.S. Civil War was a major game changer in American history, and in some ways it was the death of the "Old Republic" that was in existence earlier. Still, after the Civil War the U.S. federal army was significantly reduced back to the small number that existed previously. The same thing happened with the Spanish-American War (since you mention it) where the army grew to a rather large size with state militias filling in the ranks and then the army was subsequently reduced to a very small size afterward on the federal level. It wasn't until after World War II and the rationalization that happened during the Cold War that kept the U.S. military, and especially the U.S. Army, at large staffing levels on essentially a permanent basis.
It should also be pointed out the SpanAm War was formally declared by an act of Congress (it passed both houses... the Senate for the actual declaration and the House for appropriations to make it happen and pay for the war). It also received generally popular support among the American people prior to that war actually happening. My point is that in order to send such an army off to battle you need to get a whole bunch of people to agree to that war prior to the conflict instead of that being the decision of a small group like the Joint Chiefs of Staff or even just the President. Sure, you can get the country whipped into a war frenzy for doing something that may be stupid, but at least you got that popular support and a country committed to seeing the war through to a final conclusion. It is also something that would happen much less often rather than the current misadventures that seem to happen every five years or so on and off during the last half of the 20th Century and into the 21st Century.
You also seem to have missed the point that soldiers are controlled by more than one person. Under the earlier "state militia" model, the President couldn't call up those soldiers except in declared war or other "national emergencies". That keeps them from being used except in extreme situations and forces the decision making process to commit those soldiers to be done by a large number of people and ultimately get the support of even state legislatures before it happens. That isn't going to be done on a whim or to further the political ambitions of a particular politician... as does currently happen. Sure, you get assholes like General George A. Custer who parade around and perform military actions for political purposes (and ultimately died because of that), Still, if Custer had tried to mess around in Texas and start killing off "white" towns.... he would have met the Texas militias and threats of secession all over again. He didn't have the authority nor did the President have the authority to try a stunt like that.
The real point of the 2nd Amendment was two fold. First of all, it openly acknowledged that the real justification and authority of government is derived from the arms that government is able to field. If you start to defy that government, you rather quickly get a show of arms of some manner which reminds you who has the real authority. Allowing ordinary citizens to possess those arms sort of levels that playing field.
The other is a more general theme that is pervasive throughout the U.S. Constitution, which is that political power should not be concentrated in the hands of just one person or even a small group of people. The more you can push decision making out to larger groups of people the better off everybody becomes and in general you have more liberty if not one single person or a small group can make decisions on your behalf. This goes to a limited presidency who can't even create laws himself, a Congress that in itself has very limited authority to act where most of the real decision making was supposed to be handled by a distributed group of decision makers known as state legislators.
This gets into the role of the militia, where the military authority would be similarly distributed widely and not be concentrated in the hands of just a select few people. Generals weren't trusted, and it was presumed that every community would have their own "militia" made up of concerned citizens who would generally be protecting themselves against local threats or needs. Yes, if there was a need for mobilization on a national level those various militia groups could be organized or "regulated" on a federal level and pressed into national service, but that was presumed to be a rare event and something that generally required a formal declaration of war (a power given explicitly to congress and congress alone). A national army was permitted, but was generally intended to be quite small.
As a matter of practice, the national army was kept small throughout most of American history... with only the events subsequent to World War II that the U.S. Army in "peacetime" was ever kept at more than about 50,000 soldiers. Every major war previously including World War II itself had the national army formed by requesting assistance from the states to "donate" their militias to help grow the national army with just a small cadre of permanent soldiers who formed the core of that national army.
I seriously doubt that the misadventures subsequent to World War II would have happened had the national army been small. This includes the fiascos in places like the Balkans, Beirut (on multiple occasions), Vietnam, and Afghanistan (which might have been justified in terms of a formal declaration of war... but that would have at least brought some deliberation into the process). I seriously doubt that the U.S. Army would have ever been in Iraq if they had to depend on an army of about 30-50,000 soldiers as the whole of the U.S. Army.
This diffuse authority where there would be literally thousands of individual militias was the primary check against an over zealous federal government. If individual rights were being trampled to death and there was a real danger of the federal government over reaching its authority, it would be the collective nature of those militias that could certainly cause real concern to the federal army.
Mind you, I'm not even remotely arguing the individual possession of firearms here and I am suggesting that individual states can "regulate" how those militias are formed within their respective states. I personally think that states should license and charter individual militias subject to their state constitutions and be free to do that as much as they care without interference from the federal government. Those charters can be granted to groups of citizens that may not even be necessarily receiving tax dollars but instead can be completely voluntary groups operating on their own funds if necessary. Furthermore, I don't think that the "National Guard" should be the only milit
You really do miss the point. At least in America, if you are not a 501 (c) 3 or other legally defined non-profit corporation, you simply can't have volunteers performing tasks that could be performed by an employee, subject to direct supervision with the option of "termination" if you fail to perform those tasks. In other words, if the CEO of that company asks "I want you to make that widget" or do some other task, they must be paid. period.
Read that link. It is quite important.
Internships in "information technology" positions have even tighter restrictions, and for the most part must be paid by the hour with completely separate minimum wage laws that apply just to that industry.
The judicial ruling in the original post does suggest that "other considerations" could apply in the case of internships, if there was something of a course of study or other significant exchange of value was taking place for the interns. In the case of the judge's ruling in the original post, I think he got the law correct so far as being a general gopher and not really learning or doing tasks that represent a real learning experience for the intern could also not be considered a legitimate course of study.
I might accept the argument that some minor regulations might need to be imposed upon contracts in situations where common exploits cause harm to private individuals. For example, a clause that would impress either yourself or your family into literal slavery ought to be considered null and void in a judicial system, as should any clause that requires you to commit a felony of some sort (aka grand theft, rape, murder, or even suicide). I do agree that some minimal code of laws ought to be established which are clearly understood by all and applied equally to all citizens, as well as equally enforced.
Heck, I think if a law hasn't been enforced for a given period of time (say about 20 years or so), it should be declared null and void in a legal system. Furthermore, if a law is unequally applied and evidence can be presented as a defense that a prosecutor knowingly has not been enforcing a law when clear evidence is available for prosecution of that same law as applied to others, that it can be used in a courtroom as justification for a substantially reduced sentence from any statutory requirements or even declared obsolete and invalid as well. That would get rid of the supposed plethora of laws where every citizen commits several felonies every day simply due to ordinary day to day living... citizens who generally are trying to live an ethical lifestyle and are generally considered productive members of society.
For myself, I happen to be a limited government libertarian (I'll admit it) who thinks there is a role for government but it should be significantly restricted and kept in check from growing. I agree that you need to have the rule of law. I certainly don't subscribe to the philosophy of completely anarchy as the ultimate state of human condition as that will ultimately be compromised by bullies and tyrants, just as you have pointed out. Such a small government with minimal laws did exist in America once upon a time, but it doesn't exist here now, nor do I know of a place in the world where it does exist either.
Faulty premise. Government run by the people will shut things like this down. Government run by profiteers will find a way to keep the gravy boat running.
Name a federal agency that has been created in the past 50 years that has been shut down? Heck, can you name one in the history of the American Republic? I can think of a few that no longer exist, but those merely changed their name from one thing to another and kept the bureaucrats on board like INS is now ICE and the Maritime Revenue Service is now the U.S. Coast Guard.
About the only federal projects that I am aware of that actually have shut down are things like the X-projects in the U.S. military. Heck, the Apollo project still has funding in the FY2013 budget, and NASA certainly hasn't gone away since it put people on the Moon.
Perhaps from the whole of human history you can name a few, but I would point out those are incredible exceptions unless something like war, famine, or extreme economic circumstances happen such as what happened to some of the bureaucracies of ancient Egypt or Rome. It certainly doesn't happen on the scale of private companies going bankrupt or for that matter even private charities going bankrupt and shutting down their programs. Bureaucracies, once established, never go away.
Not really, those that believe in Libertarianism are generally not aware of what it's like to live under totalitarianism. Because then they would understand the difference between what we have in the US and totalitarianism.
Is there a difference today? The consolidation of political power in America is happening at a breath taking pace and the loss of liberties in recent years is as much as I've ever seen happen in my reading of history. I hope it will be reversed soon, but so far I don't hold out much hope.
I'm also curious about who you consider to be the most "libertarian-minded people in Congress"? There are people who have fought against SOPA, NDAA, and other alphabet soup legislation initiatives, but I suppose that a vote against those kind of bills is what you consider to be a loss of liberty? My own experience is that the number of people in Congress who are "libertarian-minded" is damn few to do much of anything, and the few who are there frequently compromise their values for more immediate political issues at hand.
No we can't. Charity is not new. It has never been successful or effective.
Correction: It has never been successful nor effective when competing against a government agency which is doing the same thing, even if the government agency is doing a much more inferior job at trying to help in that niche.
There definitely have been very successful private "charities" who have done a whole lot of good and are very well managed as well (aka most of the "donations" are used for the programs which the charity is involved with and helps most of the people they are trying to service). Otherwise, it is a matter of competition of the free market if some charity group is doing a lousy job as frequently competing charitable groups will arise if the needs aren't being met.
One thing to consider is if the goals of a charitable group have been met (aka eradicating a disease like Small Pox), a private charity group is likely to go away. A government agency on the other hand will stick around and even grow in spite of the fact that the reason for its existence is no longer relevant. That government agency may even resort to actions many would be considered unethical to ensure continued existence like finding a vial of the Small Pox virus used for research purposes and deliberately spreading that disease around in order to continue the organization.
Your complaint here about how long judgement takes through a judiciary system is more of a complaint of that judiciary system itself and not a rational rebuttal to the use of a referee who acts on a consistent set of rules to make judgements.
I will be the first to admit that the judiciary system in most "western" countries is awful at best to demonic or worse and is lucky if ordinary people can occasionally achieve redresses for their grievances as currently set up. That it takes years or longer to get a reasonable judgement that sticks only shows that the system is explicitly set up for the rich and well connected and likely needs to be rethought as a concept.
One of the reasons for a slow and deliberative judiciary is that far too often quick judgements frequently are wrong and punish the innocent. On the other hand, you can and often do find people who will be willing to serve as an arbitrator helping to make quick decisions.... where their decisions may be reviewed by a much more deliberative process later if there might be some impropriety in their decision making. Sports referees are a good example of this, where they can and do make quick decisions in the matter of mere seconds that can have a significant impact either on the game or even careers of those involved (in the case of professional sports). Similar arbitrators can be found on floors of stock exchanges, and there is no reason why you couldn't have an employment arbitrator that could make a decision in a matter of days regarding a well crafted employment law helping to resolve disputes between an employer and their employees. Indeed I think more of that should be happening.
No, I don't like "binding arbitration" without any possibility of appeal, as that is usually a rigged system to benefit one particular party over another and the weaker party is held at a significant disadvantage when that happens.
The other things you are complaining about is a screwed up rule making process where somebody has been given a significant advantage through cronyism and rules that recognize some people are better than others and thus have a specific legal advantage. It is also decidedly a situation where there is a lack of liberty and consistency in the law where rules are not equally enforced on everybody. By definition, that is corruption and not a free society.
By calling it "the state", you have automatically fiddled with the words to throw it out of recognition. It is the government we are talking about, and by definition a government is an enemy of liberty almost by its inception. Its very existence is founded upon people giving up at least some liberties in order to allow somebody to be in a position of governing... either a king, president, mayor, or judge. "The State" really doesn't exist except as an abstract concept convenient to extract even more liberties from you and to explicitly turn you into a slave with no liberties except for what "The State" has granted. By using that term, you are presupposing that "The State" has existence and authority granted anciently by presumably a divine being (even in a communist country... as a paradox I suppose) that somehow is the fountain of all life.
In reality, governments get their authority based upon what people, very ordinary people, have given that government. Sometimes it is a "tough guy" that has a nice sword or a fancy gun and is no different from a grade school bully, sometimes they are one of the "popular kids" that is now a fair bit older and has the support of many others. Words mean things, and the government is not "The State". It is merely a group of people who for whatever reason, luck or circumstances, ended up in a position of authority. That government sometimes controls some real estate as well in terms of noting who can inhabit that real estate, but it is still a committee or person who runs that government. They are the ones making the decisions.
Abstracting that concept using terms like "The State" act to absolve the unethical decisions of that committee which is the government says volumes about the current problems facing most people in the world today. That the committee which is the government may do a lousy job of protecting liberties and attempt to enslave their citizens may be true, and that only goes to show that committee might need to be replaced or eliminated. Eventually it likely will be in the long run.... or the citizens may simply "vote with their feet" and try to leave (a good sign that the government is doing a lousy job).
In most cases "regulation" implies a government "granting favors" or "picking winners and losers". At best what a government can do is to simply make sure that any rule making is applied consistently and equally to everybody. It is preferable that the rules which are created are kept few in number.... so that everybody in a market or for that matter in society can actually comprehend what it is that they are supposed to do and not do. When rules are created, the best rules are ones established because somebody screwed up and most of that society agrees that the screw up shouldn't happen again.
Unfortunately most of the time rules are made by legislators (however you define that term) simply because they have the authority to make rules and want to exercise that authority for the sake of exercising that power. It is when rules are established for the sake of simply establishing a new rule or to deliberately skew a market or society making things unequal is when you get tyranny and slavery.
What you are saying is that the government has the authority to force, at gunpoint, how you should think about things like race relations. BTW, your analogy with the gay/lesbian persecution is a bad one as it is commonly being used as a "protected minority". What would be a better analogy is somebody from a non-protect sub-group like a Justin Bieber fan being fired because they happen to wear a T-shirt with his picture on it before they changed into their work uniform. Or a Star Trek fan being fired by a boss who hates that TV series and movies.
The best thing that the government can do in that situation is to simply stay out of people's faces and let them do whatever it is that they are doing. If you have a jerk for a boss, the best thing to do is to move on and find another place to work.... or better yet be permitted (mostly by the government not getting in your way to stop you) to start your own competing business knowing full well that your former boss is likely going to have inferior employees due to his removing employees for reasons other than incompetence. That is the real point of freedom and liberty.
Otherwise it is an issue of contract law as there likely was some sort of employment contract when somebody was hired. If the supervisor screwed up and violated the terms of that contract by terminating the employee.... they should be held accountable and deal with penalties in that contract. But it is still an issue of free association... a "right" that you apparently don't think should exist.
While jury nullification on a very rare occasion has been used to absolve idiots who committed atrocities due to their "position" in the local community, I think it is much more likely that some "good old boy" would simply not be prosecuted. More importantly, and what the GP was trying to point out, you are noting corruption that really is unethical and wrong.
Considering that a random selection in a jury is likely going to get at least a few black people in the deep south, I highly doubt that "blowing up a church with black girls in it" will end up with a not guilty verdict. It might end up as a hung jury with a couple of klansmen in the jury pool, but that simply implies the trial will be repeated again... especially with a murder on the line. Certainly not in the 21st Century where killing those girls would be sensationalized and any juror attempting to be so blatant as to try nullification would likely be hunted down at gunpoint and needing police protection for sheer survival if the evidence was overwhelming.
There might still be a few racist bigots in the deep south today, but they don't really control the reins of government in the south any more. Yes, there are some towns that you need to be wary of if you are black and you should show extra respect to the local law enforcement, but you can't get away with the crap like used to happen in the past.
So you found a couple of people who were pieces of shit that happened to be also attending a "Tea Party" rally. It should be pointed out that most of those gatherings were open to anybody willing to listen, and that included nut jobs, communists, professional agitators who didn't give a damn about freedom, liberal wannabes who were openly trying to paint the rally as something it wasn't, and a whole bunch of just ordinary people who didn't like the direction that America was going and wanted to express some outrage about things happening in America.
That you discovered racism hasn't been eliminated from America should hardly be news, and it hasn't been that long since Rosa Parks was arrested for sitting in the wrong place on a bus because of her skin color. I hope things have improved a bit over the years, but there still are jerks to be found anywhere. I guess you found some from random people you met in your town and that is too bad, but shouldn't be surprising.
Inferring what a few idiots were saying that may not even believe in the goals of the founders of these Tea Party rallies simply can't be used as a stereotype of what most of those attending really thought. It would be a completely different story if they say "wetback, return to Mexico" from the podium and essentially holding a Klan rally complete with the white sheets being worn by a number of the speakers at the rally. I seriously doubt you ever saw that, and indeed most of those who would organize such a rally would be horrified if anybody even thought to say something like that before the crowd and might even be immediately denounced for saying that. For you to "hear" somebody say a racist slur out of a random group of a hundred or more people, especially in the old south, should hardly be surprising either. You might likely find the same thing visiting your local Wal-Mart or grocery store as well.
You can also look at Martha Stewart. She wasn't under oath; lied to an officer about something that wasn't a crime and was sent to prison.
I thought that was still under appeal, and furthermore it wasn't just misleading a police officer, she was imprisoned in part because she abused her position of trust and fiduciary responsibility. Because of her positions and things she was specifically put in charge of (as a member of the NYSE board of trustees and as a CEO of her own corporation) she was held to a much higher standard for the kinds of questions she was asked and was expected to give honest replies... something she failed to do when the time came.
That this high standard is seldom applied to the leading executives of major corporations should be something of a concern and shows how screwed up the criminal justice system is when prosecutors seldom apply these high standards that should apply doesn't absolve the complaint made about Martha Stewart. You are also bringing up a situation that mere ordinary people who don't get into that kind of position of trust overseeing the money of millions of people will never see in their lifetime.
In the case of Martha Stewart, even responding "I don't know" was not appropriate.
They asked for a summary in part because the original post suggested that posts which pointed to a source and didn't give a summary or at least make a meaningful discussion was silly and something that should be called out as a failed reply and something to be torn apart. That your summary showed it wasn't even on topic should be furthermore ripped apart.
Recycling content from automobiles is one of the best recycling options you can get, where most automobiles are recycled not just down to their raw components but often even machined parts are reused on more than one vehicle before they finally are worthless. While disposing of automobiles does cost some money, it definitely is cheaper to smelt down cars and trucks into raw steel or other metals (like Platinum from the catalytic converters and Copper from the electrical systems) than it is to pull those metals from the ground.
Very seldom does an automobile end up in a landfill just occupying space, unlike disposable diapers.
That will happen when Bitcoin stories stop popping up on Slashdot as well... or stories about Google or for that matter something regarding NASA.
Mistake #1: Betting against Elon Musk.
This is so true. If I saw Elon Musk moving into an industry I was involved with more directly, I would either try to send a resume off to his new company or start thinking about how to become a major competitor with Musk providing very stiff competition in hopes that my company could survive the fall-out.
Toyota saw that with Tesla and decided to invest into Tesla instead. That is also sort of the reason why Tesla has the old NUMMI plant.
I definitely agree that we'd be better off with a number of smaller countries. I'd love to see the US split into 5 or more independent republics.
At least then the national government of each would be much more representative of the population.
That was sort of the point of state governments in the first place.... until people like Abraham Lincoln screwed it up and turned America from a confederation into a strong centralized government. That is sort of the grinding axe on the part of the south-eastern states in America, where they were supposed to be independent republics with only a loose confederation that addressed very narrow and specific "national" needs on the "federal" level.
It has been misuse of things like the "interstate commerce clause" and even more blatant stamping out of individual state identities which has caused the bloat that we know today as the U.S. federal government. It is so bad that most people I've ever met seem to even forget there are state governments at all.
The big change happened when people stopped talking about "the United States are" and began saying "the United States is". That happened about 1860.
Anybody who talks about what constitutional authority Abraham Lincoln had to force at gunpoint the states of the south-east USA to remain part of the union can pervert that same logic to do pretty much anything they want including building concentration camps for specific ethnic minorities, religious groups, and conduct wholesale genocide of any group that those in power deem as unfit for whatever reason. BTW, all of that has been done in America by the U.S. federal government in the past, and is only inferior to Mao and Stalin (much less Hitler) simply because the scale of the genocide wasn't usually as massive. Supposedly that is something that happened in our distant past, but do you want to stick your neck out and find out if it is still being done?
Most people will likely make mistakes of misusing guns at an early age... all other things being equal.
You can petition and send letters to elected representatives. That doesn't mean they have to listen to you or think you are anything but a kook.
A large number of letters might give them reason to pause. Showing that you have a group of people who are going to submit a name to run against that representative in the next election cycle.... but that working with the group might just get them to endorse that current politician instead is much more likely to get his attention.
I met with one (admittedly not Austrialian... but that doesn't matter in this context) lawmaker who was well established and had seniority to do pretty much whatever he wanted... and likely able to get most legislation he submitted to even pass as he was in the majority party. His attitude towards law enforcement was that he would submit any legislation and do whatever it is that the law enforcement community asked him to do... essentially giving them a blank check on creating and passing laws.
Seriously, it isn't all that hard to get a strong "conservative" or "law and order" legislator/member of parliament to meet in a conference with a group of police chiefs or representatives of police departments and write up legislation that will help make their lives "easier", especially if passing certain laws can get more things done for the government. The only thing stopping such legislation from being written is a set of rules like a "bill of rights" that explicitly prohibits legislators from making such laws, and even then it is merely a speed bump as opposed to a way to stop such legislation unless citizens start to push back real hard.
For something like a firearm made from a 3D printer, since it is so new and something easily demonized as ordinary citizens or even "gun rights" groups could care less about... or especially because most gun manufacturers wouldn't mind getting rid of a potential competitor getting started with 3D printers.... this kind of legislation would be a cake walk to get at least submitted and introduced into any legislative chamber with considerable support on its passage. Getting some police unions agreeing with the upper brass that something like this needs to be created as law almost guarantees that it will happen.