What you are pointing out is a practical restriction, not a complete surrender of rights. For example freedom of speech in the form of bumper stickers is still guaranteed even with a registered vehicle & licensed driver. Your property rights may be restricted because of a clear threat to public safety, but you do not sign away all your property rights to the government as they cannot take your car away without due process.
In Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo the supreme court ruled the requirement publish violates freedom of the press as it would create an "intrusion into the function of editors in choosing what material goes into a newspaper and in deciding on the size and content of the paper and the treatment of public issues and officials."
FCC LICENSEES ARE VOLUNTEERS. As are the people who beg the Secretary of State for permission to Incorporate.
No-one is holding a gun to anyone's head MAKING them join up.
Just because you volunteer doesn't mean you can be compelled give up all rights.
You can associate all you want. You don't get limited liability, tax benefits, existence in perpetuity, etc. unless you agree to The People's Regulation. Part-and-Parcel with that, I'd suggest, is the requirement to act in Good Faith, and generally to benefit The People.
Yes the state can place certain permisisons in the public interest, however, it state does not have carte blanche to dictate any terms it wants. For example it cannot dictate that spouses testify against one another, force corporate newspapers to report the party line, or surpress the speech of unions. If the state has the power to prevent a corporation from deleting speech, it also has the power to force a corporation to delete certain speech, or carry certain messages. Dissolving the right of association for corporations, allows the government to violate the first amendment of individuals by proxy. It's something that already exists partially with the FCC, why give the government that power over the web too?
and you don't see something fundamentally wrong with that?
No. The only restriction is on the modification of property. A landlord cannot discriminate based on your beliefs, nor stop you from inviting associates, sign a petition, etc. Typically such clauses on signs are generalized, with the purpose not being to restrict specific speech, but to protect the visuals of the property. It's not that the landlord doesn't want you to put up your "I Hate the Mayor" sign, you also can't post your "Go local sports team" sign either.
The whole point of the US constitution was to remove the burdens of feudalism, and yet the above post describes exactly that.
The US Constitution was not designed to remove feudalism. Originally it was designed as a structure for the association of the member states. Some of the founders like John Adams believed an aristocracy was needed to ensure a stable country. In fact, a psuedo-aristocracy was in place given that Senate members were elected by state legislatures and not individual citizens.
A closer real-world equivalent would be if you were chatting with a friend in the forecourt of a gas station, and the owner came out and told you you can no longer say what you just said, that you have to take it back, and that anyone who heard it and wants to write it in a history book is not entitled to refer to that gas station's public service as part of the historical event.
No a closer equivalent is to write something on a whiteboard and the owner erases it.
I am more than concerned that we may have to resort to violently removing our government for the crimes they have committed against us and the failure to do their sworn duty.
Why? These politicians keep getting reelected. A revolution would be needed to fix the system. The system is working fine, the people are getting the government they want.
Democracy is two wolves and lamb voting on what's for lunch.
I prefer to think of democracy as two sheep and a wolf voting on what's for lunch. So you end up with the prisoners dilemma. As long as the sheep stick together they are fine, but the slightest bit of fear will turn the sheep against each other, and the decision becomes the wolf's.
You will need to go through geek reeducation though. We'll start with watching all the Star Wars Movies in order. Yes it will hurt at first... but that's just to remind you not to stray.
This is insane. We're throwing untold billions of dollars away on useless, inconsequential or outright stupid things every year, and we can't afford a few million for something like Aricebo? Are we nuts?
Yes, stop spending on inconsequential things... just not MY inconsequential things.
Hell, let's make it entertaining while we're at it, equip them with guns and send out guards in funny themed suits to hunt them down. Maybe use a CGI representation of that guy who hosted Family Fued to MC the whole event.
Makes you think, doesn't it? Everyone is getting the hell out of there and we're headed straight for it. Someone ought to do something about this...:)
Why? I'm sure with them getting the hell away it's a buyer's market, we could triple or quadruple the size of our solar system, buy a few more planets, maybe even add another star to really brighten things up.
These are International standards that have been largely upheld by the vast majority of states since the late 1800s.
Using your definition the majority of states have engaged in illegal warfare. The US, Canada, European Powers, Russia, China, Japan, Middle Eastern countries, African nations, etc. have engaged in aggressive military actions against neighbors, even the UN is guilty of invasion under the guise of "peacekeeping." A definition where nearly every nation is criminal is worthless.
Colin Powell was the face of the deception campaign the Bush administration orchestrated. He was the one who went to the United Nations, and made a whole bunch of claims that turned out to be false. He's damaged goods. Why on earth would someone suggest he'd be a good candidate in a year when the electorate is itching to repudiate everything about this war?
Because he recognized his mistake, recognized he was being lied to by everybody around him, tried to make those in power make the right decision before they trotted him out, and resigned rather than be forced to continue a puppet for a false agenda. He's a great candidate because he represents how most Americans feel, pawns who were lied to and shoehorned into war. Powell represents "what could have been" if those in power would have examined the data without prejudice. His presentation to the UN was the epitome of politics, having to push an agenda he doesn't believe in to maintain the appearence of unity. It's the same reason politicians everywhere will tow the party line rather than voting their conscience or even vote to represent their constituents. Although Powell would make a great candidate, likely he doesn't want to play the political game.
That's why I said "intelligently" handle critical thinking. There are many intelligent children who are able to understand complex concepts, analyze them, and create a logical opinion, but the majority of students at that age don't have the required level of reasoning or experience. The best example is watching children argue about which sports team is the best. Unlike most academic topics, sports is a subject that many children are interested in and study extensively. Even with such level of interest and education, children at that age still understand mainly superficial ideas and are prone to accept popular opinion and media hype. They can try to think for themselves, but more often they fall back upon the crutch of popular thought in the face of opposition. To be able to truly examine topic critically, someone must have a wide understanding of the topic and others which are associated to properly place things in context. Children are ready to start studying science before they have suffient experience to discuss the philosophy of science. In my opinion middle school should provide students with background information, high school is where you take the array of knowledge learned and like a puzzle, start to place things in critical perspective.
I have found it isn't education, but rather economic status which determines how easily somebody can be manipulated. While the two often go hand-in-hand, there are many educated people who willingly turn to faith or blindly follow a tyrant when they have no job or are convinced they are threatened. The poor follow, the rich lead... it's happened again and again. That is why a strong middle class, even in the absence of formal education, is a stronger deterrent to tyranny and group think.
Slashdot Mirror
What you are pointing out is a practical restriction, not a complete surrender of rights. For example freedom of speech in the form of bumper stickers is still guaranteed even with a registered vehicle & licensed driver. Your property rights may be restricted because of a clear threat to public safety, but you do not sign away all your property rights to the government as they cannot take your car away without due process.
As does the Judicial and legislative branches
Just because you volunteer doesn't mean you can be compelled give up all rights.
Yes the state can place certain permisisons in the public interest, however, it state does not have carte blanche to dictate any terms it wants. For example it cannot dictate that spouses testify against one another, force corporate newspapers to report the party line, or surpress the speech of unions.
If the state has the power to prevent a corporation from deleting speech, it also has the power to force a corporation to delete certain speech, or carry certain messages. Dissolving the right of association for corporations, allows the government to violate the first amendment of individuals by proxy. It's something that already exists partially with the FCC, why give the government that power over the web too?
No. The only restriction is on the modification of property. A landlord cannot discriminate based on your beliefs, nor stop you from inviting associates, sign a petition, etc. Typically such clauses on signs are generalized, with the purpose not being to restrict specific speech, but to protect the visuals of the property. It's not that the landlord doesn't want you to put up your "I Hate the Mayor" sign, you also can't post your "Go local sports team" sign either.
The US Constitution was not designed to remove feudalism. Originally it was designed as a structure for the association of the member states. Some of the founders like John Adams believed an aristocracy was needed to ensure a stable country. In fact, a psuedo-aristocracy was in place given that Senate members were elected by state legislatures and not individual citizens.
No a closer equivalent is to write something on a whiteboard and the owner erases it.
Marriages are also ALE's, should married people be bound by Constitutional restrictions.
Corporations, unions, etc. are protected by the Constitution under the first amendment (freedom of association).
...kills you?
Why? These politicians keep getting reelected. A revolution would be needed to fix the system. The system is working fine, the people are getting the government they want.
I prefer to think of democracy as two sheep and a wolf voting on what's for lunch. So you end up with the prisoners dilemma. As long as the sheep stick together they are fine, but the slightest bit of fear will turn the sheep against each other, and the decision becomes the wolf's.
letters make a stronger password than numbers. Personally I use "password"
You will need to go through geek reeducation though.
We'll start with watching all the Star Wars Movies in order. Yes it will hurt at first... but that's just to remind you not to stray.
The regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this shock collar.
I've always prefered 867-5309 Jenny Myself
Yes, stop spending on inconsequential things... just not MY inconsequential things.
... for 17 years.
Though it does seem like one of his speeches, I mean with the whole standing out in the sun with black clothes gets you hot insight.
Hell, let's make it entertaining while we're at it, equip them with guns and send out guards in funny themed suits to hunt them down. Maybe use a CGI representation of that guy who hosted Family Fued to MC the whole event.
Why? I'm sure with them getting the hell away it's a buyer's market, we could triple or quadruple the size of our solar system, buy a few more planets, maybe even add another star to really brighten things up.
Planet shoots first?
Using your definition the majority of states have engaged in illegal warfare. The US, Canada, European Powers, Russia, China, Japan, Middle Eastern countries, African nations, etc. have engaged in aggressive military actions against neighbors, even the UN is guilty of invasion under the guise of "peacekeeping."
A definition where nearly every nation is criminal is worthless.
3.5 months of cold beer and girls in bikinis...
Because he recognized his mistake, recognized he was being lied to by everybody around him, tried to make those in power make the right decision before they trotted him out, and resigned rather than be forced to continue a puppet for a false agenda. He's a great candidate because he represents how most Americans feel, pawns who were lied to and shoehorned into war. Powell represents "what could have been" if those in power would have examined the data without prejudice.
His presentation to the UN was the epitome of politics, having to push an agenda he doesn't believe in to maintain the appearence of unity. It's the same reason politicians everywhere will tow the party line rather than voting their conscience or even vote to represent their constituents.
Although Powell would make a great candidate, likely he doesn't want to play the political game.
Who defines a legal war? The war in Iraq is understandably unpopular, but there is no authority that defines whether a war is legal or not.
That's why I said "intelligently" handle critical thinking. There are many intelligent children who are able to understand complex concepts, analyze them, and create a logical opinion, but the majority of students at that age don't have the required level of reasoning or experience.
The best example is watching children argue about which sports team is the best. Unlike most academic topics, sports is a subject that many children are interested in and study extensively. Even with such level of interest and education, children at that age still understand mainly superficial ideas and are prone to accept popular opinion and media hype. They can try to think for themselves, but more often they fall back upon the crutch of popular thought in the face of opposition.
To be able to truly examine topic critically, someone must have a wide understanding of the topic and others which are associated to properly place things in context. Children are ready to start studying science before they have suffient experience to discuss the philosophy of science.
In my opinion middle school should provide students with background information, high school is where you take the array of knowledge learned and like a puzzle, start to place things in critical perspective.
I have found it isn't education, but rather economic status which determines how easily somebody can be manipulated. While the two often go hand-in-hand, there are many educated people who willingly turn to faith or blindly follow a tyrant when they have no job or are convinced they are threatened.
The poor follow, the rich lead... it's happened again and again. That is why a strong middle class, even in the absence of formal education, is a stronger deterrent to tyranny and group think.