We'll probably have a federated republic, not a unitary state.
The US is a Federated Republic. As originally laid down it was never imagined that the Federal Government would get involved in everything from gun control to the welfare state. Why should I believe that a Federated World Government wouldn't be subject to the same mission creep and erosion of personal liberty?
Also, if you speak about guns as a right, then can you show me why it's a necessary right?
Do you believe that people have the right to defend themselves (self-defense) when confronted with someone who doesn't share our enlightened morality? If the answer is yes then why don't they have the right to have access to the tools that enable them to defend themselves effectively?
A gun is an equalizer. Nothing more, nothing less. Few of us geeks here on/. would be capable of prevailing in a fight against a hardened criminal who spent the last ten years in prison pumping iron. Put a gun in your hands and the odds change considerably. In the worst case scenario they are now equal. In the best case scenario they are tilted in your favor. I'm not a particularly religious person but I do agree with the sentiment behind this quote: God created man, but Samuel Colt made them equal.
There's also the argument that an armed population provides deterrence against external aggression. Switzerland is the best known example, though some sources indicate that the armed American population provided a deterrent to the Japanese in the early stages of WW2. I would go so far as to advocate that we emulate the Swiss/early American model. Disband most of the Army, while keeping specialist units (anti-aircraft brigades, artillery, intelligence, etc) and the Navy/Air Force around. In the event of a conflict it doesn't take that long to draft people into the service and teach them to fire a rifle. Such a system protects the country just fine while doing away with the standing army that the politicians are tempted to send on foreign adventures or use to oppress the population.
If none of those arguments hold water with you then I don't know what to say other than why do I have to prove that my rights are "necessary"? A Chinese person might argue that the right to free speech isn't "necessary". Many countries get along without it. I don't think we want to emulate them though.
I don't have a problem with you including good ole Fidel in that list. I don't take any issue with him for fighting to free his people from the Batista's. I do think it's fair to take issue with him for the manner in which he choose to run his country though. Washington willingly surrendered power and set a precedent for the peaceful transfer thereof. Fidel has clutched to it for the better part of half a century and "surrendered" it to his brother once he became too old and feeble to run the country.
I would point out that Ceaser probably doesn't deserve to be in your list. My reading of history suggests that it was never his intention to take over the known world. His conquests seem to have been driven by the motivation for personal enrichment/political prestige back home and the desire to defeat his enemies within the Roman state. Alexander the Great is a better example. He would have kept going all the way to China if his troops had let him.
Uhmm.... So France and Germany can NEVER live together and European Union is impossible, right?
Nice strawman. Mind quoting the portion of my post where I said that?
Have you ever been in a war area or close to one?
How is that remotely relevant to the point I was making? Are you trying to say "It can't happen here" or are you just going for a one line rebuttal? I think you are smart enough to realize that it can happen here because it already has.
Take a look at the history of lynching in the American south and ask yourself if it would have occurred as often if the targeted population had been well armed. Did you know that many of the earliest examples of gun control in the United States were specifically aimed at keeping "undesirables" from obtaining arms? We wouldn't want those pesky minorities to have the means to defend themselves, now would we? They might get uppity or something.
Want a more recent example? Consider the Rwandan Genocide. It was largely carried out by militia's armed with little more than assault rifles. Think they could have carried it out if the victims had been similarly armed and able to resist?
How about you tell me what it is about the prospect of private ownership of weapons that offends you so much?
History suggests otherwise. If we ever find a way to get off this rock it's more probable that you'll see oppressed people leaving to start a new life than it is that you'll see us all come together to sing kumbaya around the camp fire.
And probably by that time Americans will stop clinging to their toy guns...
How many more genocides of unarmed populations will we have to see before you people stop looking down on those who want the ability to protect themselves from those who don't share your enlightened morality?
Because not everyone is strong enough to defeat a determined aggressor in hand to hand combat? Because aggressors will always be able to get their hands on weapons despite the numerous laws saying they can't have them? Because a gun is the most effective tool currently available for defending yourself against aggression?
It's pretty clear that the right against self-incrimination and jury trial will be included in the 'World Constitutions', since it's there in the laws of most of developed nations.
No, nothing of the sort is "pretty clear". Not when the closest thing we currently have to a world government (the UN) lets countries like Libya and Cuba sit on human rights commissions.
Not so with guns (and speaking as a European - that's probably a plus).
So you admit that I'd lose a right that I already have? Way to sell me on the idea:) Saying it's a "plus" demonstrates that you are willing to go along with a policy of taking away the rights of another.
Hate speech laws is a tough one, agree.
No, it's not a tough one at all. Who gets to decide what's hate speech? The Government? Then they can decide that anything is hate speech and outlaw it. There are a few people on the left in the US that think the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are "hate" speech, whereas most sane people would regard their speech as political discourse. It may not be particularly intelligent political discourse but that doesn't mean it's "hate" speech.
If Government gets to decide what type of speech should be free then we don't have free speech. We have approved speech. You can spin it anyway you want but that's not free speech.
The world has more than enough resources to feed everyone. The problem is getting food to hungry and the real world government might be able to solve it.
Your right. It might be able to solve it. So might Bill Gates, Bono or the UN. Saying a World Government might be able to solve world hunger does not sell me on the idea of turning my civil liberties over to a world government.
Besides, how are you going to get dictatorships and corrupt governments to willingly surrender their power? Or do you intend to impose your world government at gunpoint and invade them if necessary? Corruption is the main roadblock to solving world hunger -- you think it's going to go away if you replace ~180 governments of varying size with one massive one?
Maybe because that whole "keep and bear arms" thing isn't a REAL human right?
The right to defend yourself and your family against aggression is a human right. Humans aren't obligated to turn the other cheek when faced with aggression. If you accept this simple truth then it stands to reason that we have the right to possess tools that enable us effectively exercise our right of self-defense.
What's next, you want to them to sanction your "right" to have a flint spear?
Is there some compelling reason why I shouldn't be allowed to possess a flint spear?
How about billions of dollars a year spent on defending us from other countries that can be redirected into scientific research, tax cuts, or universal health care programs?
What good does that do me if my civil liberties are reduced to the lowest common denominator?
I'm an average person under 40. I watch TV, but I don't use a DVR. Most of my friends don't either. This is a big country. I don't think you can make generalizations based on your own demographic.
What are you going to do when you get an auditor that asks you why you aren't using the Ovaltine decoder ring because that's what they read was recommended?
Not that I don't agree with you on most of your points, but you really don't see much that we have to gain?
Perhaps I should have said that whatever we stand to gain is not enough to offset what we would stand to lose.
If nothing else, we can stop wasting a trillion dollars a year on defense spending
Then what happens when some asshat comes to power in one of the member states and stops following the rule of law?
Not to mention the opportunity to give other people the freedoms and opportunities that I enjoy
But you just said that you agree with me on most of my points. My main point was that we would stand to lose our freedoms. What good do opportunities do you if you aren't free?
or the will to feed the 1 billion hungry people around the world
Why do you need a global government to tackle world hunger? Government hasn't even been able to completely solve hunger in individual developed nations. What makes you think it could do so on a global scale?
or the ability to trade efficiently without sabotaging each other's economies.
Why would a global government keep trade from sabotaging individual countries? It's arguable that this already happens within nations. As a random example, the American South provides tax incentives and employer friendly labor laws to encourage manufacturers to set up shop there instead of in the Northern states.
The real problem is that if the government ever does something you don't like, there isn't a whole lot you can do about it (even more so than now).
Would a global federal republic be that much worse?
It would be for Americans, who would stand to lose our right to keep and bear arms and our right against self-incrimination. Neither of those rights are protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Nor is the right to counsel or the right to a jury trial. Then there's the matter that different countries regard free speech differently. In Europe they outlaw "hate speech". In the US it's protected.
So again, which model do you use? The only document that has near-global acceptance fails to protect several rights that Americans already have. Given that those rights aren't regarded as such by most other nations why would I assume that a global government would protect them?
All we really did was plant a flag and thumb our noses at the Soviets. Entertaining but of little real use.
You don't consider all of the technological advances that stemmed from Apollo to be of real use? What about the scientific knowledge that was gained from study of the moon rocks we brought back?
I'd much rather a unified nation with no competition
What happens to your civil liberties under a unified global nation? Which model are you going to use? The US model? The EU model? The Chinese one? The Singaporean one? How do you run such a unified nation? One man, one vote? That leads to the tyranny of the majority. Do you adopt a split system like the US Federal Government with an upper-body for each member state and a lower body that represents populations? In that case is it really fair that the Vatican gets the same representation that China or India does?
I'm not jumping up and down at the prospect of a unified planet Earth. I'm in one of the freest countries on Earth and don't see what we have to gain. I see plenty that we could lose though.
Umm, WTF is up with all the outrage? I didn't suggest we give away any freedoms. All I said that was criminals get off on legal technicalities, in response to a claim that Americans care more about being "tough on crime" than we do about the rule of law. Clearly that isn't the case.
Those who know me know that I'm a civil libertarian. I was once falsely accused of committing a felony and had to fight to clear my name. Going through such an experience gives you an appreciation for our rights and the way our system works.
Perhaps you should check your outrage at the door next time and stop reading things into posts that aren't there?
It's pretty funny that you assume he's a right-winger when his signature could just as easily support the idea of a public health care plan. Perhaps you should check your outrage at the door next time and try using your brain instead?
Hearing a Brit talk about the losing side of history is pretty amusing too. How's that surveillance society nanny state working out for you? Don't worry about all those rights you keep losing, you didn't need them anyway. Your friends in the Home Office will take good care of you:)
In order to solve your problem, you need to set the RANDOMLY_DISCHARGE_BATTERY flag in the kernel source to "0" at compile time. Ubuntu, as well as other "desktop" distributions, set this flag to "1" by default for some reason, but simply installing the source packages and recompiling your kernel will fix the issue.
Recompile the kernel? You n00b. Just add this to your rc.local file:
this country has demonstrated many times that it does not care about the rule of law when it comes to being "tough on crime",
Which explains why so many violent criminals manage to dodge convictions here based on legal technicalities. It's rather apparent that you don't know anything about how the American legal system actually works and are only repeating stereotypes.
Actually, a hard disk in its shell can be quite good protection from 9mm handguns - they withstand the blast. I believe this is also true for a.357 magnum.
I call bullshit. A hard drive's "shell" is nothing more than a thin piece of sheet metal. The 9mm may be a wussy round but it's up to the task of going through a few millimeters of sheet steel. The.357 was originally designed to penetrate the body armor worn by bootleggers in the 30s. It will also go through a car door with ease. If you are counting on one or two hard drives to stop it I think you are in for a rude surprise.
U.S. states can not pass laws regulating interstate commerce.
I guess that depends on what your definition of 'regulate' and 'interstate commerce' is. New York State regulates insurance companies when they choose to do business here, even if they are located elsewhere. Is that not interstate commerce? What about regulating utility companies? How about California imposing their own standards on cars manufactured outside the state?
Slashdot Mirror
We'll probably have a federated republic, not a unitary state.
The US is a Federated Republic. As originally laid down it was never imagined that the Federal Government would get involved in everything from gun control to the welfare state. Why should I believe that a Federated World Government wouldn't be subject to the same mission creep and erosion of personal liberty?
Also, if you speak about guns as a right, then can you show me why it's a necessary right?
Do you believe that people have the right to defend themselves (self-defense) when confronted with someone who doesn't share our enlightened morality? If the answer is yes then why don't they have the right to have access to the tools that enable them to defend themselves effectively?
A gun is an equalizer. Nothing more, nothing less. Few of us geeks here on /. would be capable of prevailing in a fight against a hardened criminal who spent the last ten years in prison pumping iron. Put a gun in your hands and the odds change considerably. In the worst case scenario they are now equal. In the best case scenario they are tilted in your favor. I'm not a particularly religious person but I do agree with the sentiment behind this quote: God created man, but Samuel Colt made them equal.
There's also the argument that an armed population provides deterrence against external aggression. Switzerland is the best known example, though some sources indicate that the armed American population provided a deterrent to the Japanese in the early stages of WW2. I would go so far as to advocate that we emulate the Swiss/early American model. Disband most of the Army, while keeping specialist units (anti-aircraft brigades, artillery, intelligence, etc) and the Navy/Air Force around. In the event of a conflict it doesn't take that long to draft people into the service and teach them to fire a rifle. Such a system protects the country just fine while doing away with the standing army that the politicians are tempted to send on foreign adventures or use to oppress the population.
If none of those arguments hold water with you then I don't know what to say other than why do I have to prove that my rights are "necessary"? A Chinese person might argue that the right to free speech isn't "necessary". Many countries get along without it. I don't think we want to emulate them though.
I don't have a problem with you including good ole Fidel in that list. I don't take any issue with him for fighting to free his people from the Batista's. I do think it's fair to take issue with him for the manner in which he choose to run his country though. Washington willingly surrendered power and set a precedent for the peaceful transfer thereof. Fidel has clutched to it for the better part of half a century and "surrendered" it to his brother once he became too old and feeble to run the country.
I would point out that Ceaser probably doesn't deserve to be in your list. My reading of history suggests that it was never his intention to take over the known world. His conquests seem to have been driven by the motivation for personal enrichment/political prestige back home and the desire to defeat his enemies within the Roman state. Alexander the Great is a better example. He would have kept going all the way to China if his troops had let him.
Uhmm.... So France and Germany can NEVER live together and European Union is impossible, right?
Nice strawman. Mind quoting the portion of my post where I said that?
Have you ever been in a war area or close to one?
How is that remotely relevant to the point I was making? Are you trying to say "It can't happen here" or are you just going for a one line rebuttal? I think you are smart enough to realize that it can happen here because it already has.
Take a look at the history of lynching in the American south and ask yourself if it would have occurred as often if the targeted population had been well armed. Did you know that many of the earliest examples of gun control in the United States were specifically aimed at keeping "undesirables" from obtaining arms? We wouldn't want those pesky minorities to have the means to defend themselves, now would we? They might get uppity or something.
Want a more recent example? Consider the Rwandan Genocide. It was largely carried out by militia's armed with little more than assault rifles. Think they could have carried it out if the victims had been similarly armed and able to resist?
How about you tell me what it is about the prospect of private ownership of weapons that offends you so much?
It will be formed willingly one day.
History suggests otherwise. If we ever find a way to get off this rock it's more probable that you'll see oppressed people leaving to start a new life than it is that you'll see us all come together to sing kumbaya around the camp fire.
And probably by that time Americans will stop clinging to their toy guns...
How many more genocides of unarmed populations will we have to see before you people stop looking down on those who want the ability to protect themselves from those who don't share your enlightened morality?
Because not everyone is strong enough to defeat a determined aggressor in hand to hand combat? Because aggressors will always be able to get their hands on weapons despite the numerous laws saying they can't have them? Because a gun is the most effective tool currently available for defending yourself against aggression?
It's pretty clear that the right against self-incrimination and jury trial will be included in the 'World Constitutions', since it's there in the laws of most of developed nations.
No, nothing of the sort is "pretty clear". Not when the closest thing we currently have to a world government (the UN) lets countries like Libya and Cuba sit on human rights commissions.
Not so with guns (and speaking as a European - that's probably a plus).
So you admit that I'd lose a right that I already have? Way to sell me on the idea :) Saying it's a "plus" demonstrates that you are willing to go along with a policy of taking away the rights of another.
Hate speech laws is a tough one, agree.
No, it's not a tough one at all. Who gets to decide what's hate speech? The Government? Then they can decide that anything is hate speech and outlaw it. There are a few people on the left in the US that think the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are "hate" speech, whereas most sane people would regard their speech as political discourse. It may not be particularly intelligent political discourse but that doesn't mean it's "hate" speech.
If Government gets to decide what type of speech should be free then we don't have free speech. We have approved speech. You can spin it anyway you want but that's not free speech.
The world has more than enough resources to feed everyone. The problem is getting food to hungry and the real world government might be able to solve it.
Your right. It might be able to solve it. So might Bill Gates, Bono or the UN. Saying a World Government might be able to solve world hunger does not sell me on the idea of turning my civil liberties over to a world government.
Besides, how are you going to get dictatorships and corrupt governments to willingly surrender their power? Or do you intend to impose your world government at gunpoint and invade them if necessary? Corruption is the main roadblock to solving world hunger -- you think it's going to go away if you replace ~180 governments of varying size with one massive one?
Maybe because that whole "keep and bear arms" thing isn't a REAL human right?
The right to defend yourself and your family against aggression is a human right. Humans aren't obligated to turn the other cheek when faced with aggression. If you accept this simple truth then it stands to reason that we have the right to possess tools that enable us effectively exercise our right of self-defense.
What's next, you want to them to sanction your "right" to have a flint spear?
Is there some compelling reason why I shouldn't be allowed to possess a flint spear?
How about billions of dollars a year spent on defending us from other countries that can be redirected into scientific research, tax cuts, or universal health care programs?
What good does that do me if my civil liberties are reduced to the lowest common denominator?
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't they have an agreement with TiVo to see the viewing data that TiVo collects?
I'm an average person under 40. I watch TV, but I don't use a DVR. Most of my friends don't either. This is a big country. I don't think you can make generalizations based on your own demographic.
??? ;)
What are you going to do when you get an auditor that asks you why you aren't using the Ovaltine decoder ring because that's what they read was recommended?
The passenger in the seat next to you might object to this particular course of action ;)
Not that I don't agree with you on most of your points, but you really don't see much that we have to gain?
Perhaps I should have said that whatever we stand to gain is not enough to offset what we would stand to lose.
If nothing else, we can stop wasting a trillion dollars a year on defense spending
Then what happens when some asshat comes to power in one of the member states and stops following the rule of law?
Not to mention the opportunity to give other people the freedoms and opportunities that I enjoy
But you just said that you agree with me on most of my points. My main point was that we would stand to lose our freedoms. What good do opportunities do you if you aren't free?
or the will to feed the 1 billion hungry people around the world
Why do you need a global government to tackle world hunger? Government hasn't even been able to completely solve hunger in individual developed nations. What makes you think it could do so on a global scale?
or the ability to trade efficiently without sabotaging each other's economies.
Why would a global government keep trade from sabotaging individual countries? It's arguable that this already happens within nations. As a random example, the American South provides tax incentives and employer friendly labor laws to encourage manufacturers to set up shop there instead of in the Northern states.
The real problem is that if the government ever does something you don't like, there isn't a whole lot you can do about it (even more so than now).
I'd say that's a pretty big problem :)
Would a global federal republic be that much worse?
It would be for Americans, who would stand to lose our right to keep and bear arms and our right against self-incrimination. Neither of those rights are protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Nor is the right to counsel or the right to a jury trial. Then there's the matter that different countries regard free speech differently. In Europe they outlaw "hate speech". In the US it's protected.
So again, which model do you use? The only document that has near-global acceptance fails to protect several rights that Americans already have. Given that those rights aren't regarded as such by most other nations why would I assume that a global government would protect them?
All we really did was plant a flag and thumb our noses at the Soviets. Entertaining but of little real use.
You don't consider all of the technological advances that stemmed from Apollo to be of real use? What about the scientific knowledge that was gained from study of the moon rocks we brought back?
I'd much rather a unified nation with no competition
What happens to your civil liberties under a unified global nation? Which model are you going to use? The US model? The EU model? The Chinese one? The Singaporean one? How do you run such a unified nation? One man, one vote? That leads to the tyranny of the majority. Do you adopt a split system like the US Federal Government with an upper-body for each member state and a lower body that represents populations? In that case is it really fair that the Vatican gets the same representation that China or India does?
I'm not jumping up and down at the prospect of a unified planet Earth. I'm in one of the freest countries on Earth and don't see what we have to gain. I see plenty that we could lose though.
Umm, WTF is up with all the outrage? I didn't suggest we give away any freedoms. All I said that was criminals get off on legal technicalities, in response to a claim that Americans care more about being "tough on crime" than we do about the rule of law. Clearly that isn't the case.
Those who know me know that I'm a civil libertarian. I was once falsely accused of committing a felony and had to fight to clear my name. Going through such an experience gives you an appreciation for our rights and the way our system works.
Perhaps you should check your outrage at the door next time and stop reading things into posts that aren't there?
It's pretty funny that you assume he's a right-winger when his signature could just as easily support the idea of a public health care plan. Perhaps you should check your outrage at the door next time and try using your brain instead?
Hearing a Brit talk about the losing side of history is pretty amusing too. How's that surveillance society nanny state working out for you? Don't worry about all those rights you keep losing, you didn't need them anyway. Your friends in the Home Office will take good care of you :)
In order to solve your problem, you need to set the RANDOMLY_DISCHARGE_BATTERY flag in the kernel source to "0" at compile time. Ubuntu, as well as other "desktop" distributions, set this flag to "1" by default for some reason, but simply installing the source packages and recompiling your kernel will fix the issue.
Recompile the kernel? You n00b. Just add this to your rc.local file:
echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/randomly_discharge_battery
Go a step further - write a book.
this country has demonstrated many times that it does not care about the rule of law when it comes to being "tough on crime",
Which explains why so many violent criminals manage to dodge convictions here based on legal technicalities. It's rather apparent that you don't know anything about how the American legal system actually works and are only repeating stereotypes.
Actually, a hard disk in its shell can be quite good protection from 9mm handguns - they withstand the blast. I believe this is also true for a .357 magnum.
I call bullshit. A hard drive's "shell" is nothing more than a thin piece of sheet metal. The 9mm may be a wussy round but it's up to the task of going through a few millimeters of sheet steel. The .357 was originally designed to penetrate the body armor worn by bootleggers in the 30s. It will also go through a car door with ease. If you are counting on one or two hard drives to stop it I think you are in for a rude surprise.
I was thinking of another movie with a Texan theme ;)
U.S. states can not pass laws regulating interstate commerce.
I guess that depends on what your definition of 'regulate' and 'interstate commerce' is. New York State regulates insurance companies when they choose to do business here, even if they are located elsewhere. Is that not interstate commerce? What about regulating utility companies? How about California imposing their own standards on cars manufactured outside the state?