Here's what is going to happen in Australia within the next 12 months: Cryptography Licencing!
Any use of encryption with a greater than X strength (40 bits, maybe), will require a government licence and registration. Illegal possession and/or distribution of said cyrptography will get you a stiff jail term.
The governments of Australia and the UK, for starters. What better way to enforce their draconian anti-privacy/anti-Internet laws than to have everyone given a number? Heck, there's quite a few politicians here in the US (Sen. Feinstein) who'd just love to see this come about.
You Don't Need A Gun To Have Rights In A Democracy.
So very right, but at the same time, so very wrong. In an ideal world, you are perfectly right: a democracy is ruled by the majority(who are presumably right, kind, and just) delegating their powers to representatives(who are presumably even kinder and juster). However, in practice things don't always work out this way. Sometimes, you have what is known as "tyranny of the majority", where the majority uses their democratic power to oppress the minority. The Jim Crow laws that sprang up after the Civil War typify this. Certainly this was pure democracy in action -- the legislators doing what their constituents wanted. These laws, coupled with the resurgence ofThe KKK, made it very uncomfortable to be a political(and, in this case, racial) minority in much of this country for quite a time. Democracy in Action!
However, the founders of the US had thought of this, and set down the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is specifically intended to preserve individual liberty, even at the cost of pure majority rule.
Of course, in practice, this hasn't always worked so well (see above). It seems that no matter how many times freedoms are written down, even on real paper, they can be stolen by the government and/or antagonistic fellow citizens.
Only one thing stands between the black sharecropper and the Klan, between the Warsaw Jew and the Nazis, between any oppressed minority and the pogrom. It is the one thing the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto tried desperately to aquire, the one thing that was immediately taken from free blacks in the South, the one thing that every tyrant fears: a gun.
All too often, in America and elsewhere, personal weapons have meant the difference between liberty and slavery, between life and death. Remember the words of Martin Niemoller: "In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up." Do you think this would have happened if every Communist, Jew, trade unionist, Catholic, and Protestant had had a gun and ammunition? Of course, one of the first things Hitler did was register, and then later confiscate, almost every priately-owned firearm in Germany.
Maybe I'm just another crazy American obsessed with guns. Maybe this time, for real, cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die, government is really kind and benevolent. Maybe you will put your faith in them, and vote, and hope that this time, they won't take away quite so many of your rights.
And maybe, it will be because you have no other choice.
>Unfortunately america is full of uneducated lunatics. And unfortunately those people tend to group in militia.
And you base these statements on what, exactly? Have you ever visited the US? Lived here?
>I would sleep a lot better if their guns were taken away from them.
Why? Do you believe that they threaten you over there in Europe?
>People in militias are people who are plainly to stupid and ignorant to join a political party and use their constitutional right to change the system in a civilized way.
Again, what do you base this on?
>My government (in the netherlands in case you wonder) should protect me from this kind of people, that's what I vote for and that's why I pay my taxes.
Historically, most governments, the US included, haven't been so kind to their people, even those that vote and pay their taxes. That's why we have a written Constitution, which includes provisions specifically designed to limit the government's power over it's citizens. Such things as freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom to own and carry personal weapons, freedom from self-incrimination, etc..., keep the government chained down. That's why they try to pre-empt them at every opportunity.
>That's nice as an empirical truth but how well does it hold up in practice.
It holds up only as long as you have the means to protect your rights. As the origional post on this thread mentioned, this means guns. Check out The Racist Roots of Gun Control, and read this interview with a Holocaust survior.
Yes, Congress has the ability to repeal the Bill of Rights. The also could take away female sufferage, and reinstitute slavery.
But, a "right" is not something that your massa gives you -- it is something that you are born with! Just because it is illegal, does not mean that it does not exist. Remember the bit about "These truths we hold self-evident, that all men are created equal..."?
As for the civilians vs. military, check out the following conflicts: American Revolution Boer War Vietnam Afghanistan
In short, the most important quality for a fighting force is will, or morale. All of the tanks/planes/bombs in the world do nothing for you if you won't use them. Look at What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army? for further thoughts.
Well, don't forget AntiOnline, or the current lawsuits against gun manufacturers, or even the classic "Mcdonald's-hot-coffee-in-the-lap".
I think that it's just too profitable to sue nowadays--in most cases the victim of a lawsuit just gives in, rather than face a possible multi-million dollar judgement against them. It works out to be cheaper that way.
It's the exact moral equivalent of a protection racket: buy your "fire insurance" for $100 a week, or your store mysteriously burns down. Oh, and don't bother with the cops, or you might fall down some stairs. Settle out of court, or we'll tie you up in litigation for years, and you'll probalby lose in front of some soft-headed jury, anyhow.
What can be done about it? Heck, I dunno. Maybe I can scrape up some cash and sue someone...
Adolf Hitler was "different". The people in the KKK dress "different". The Heaven's Gate cult was "different".
Jesus (if you believe in 'im) was "different". The signers of the Declaration of Independence were "different". Ghandi was "different".
Why is the attitude around here seem to be that people who deliberatly look and act different are somehow automatically superior to those who don't?
I haven't seen that at all. I would say that the "attitude" is that people just want to be left the hell alone, to be themselves. Yes, there is the feeling that "Since I don't persecute and abuse you I'm morally and intellectually superior to you.", but I think that's quite justified, don't you?
What good is "expressing ones individual identity" if everyone else thinks you are a freak, and treats you as such?
Because it gives you your self-respect. It says "I am ME! Not a name, a number, another drone! ME!."
how is society supposed to prevent future Littleton tragedies if they can't single out people who they suspect may have problems.
They could make them wear a yellow, six-pointed star on their chests...
Let's think about the following theories for a second, shall we?
Access to guns allowed these kids to do this.
Fifty years ago, you could buy a gun for ten bucks through the mail, yet kids weren't going on rampages.
Access to information about bombs allowed these kids to do this.
Fifty years ago, you could buy dynamite in the hardware store, yet kids weren't going on rampages.
Social pressures/hardship made these kids do this.
Fifty years ago, racial segregation was the norm in many parts of the country. During the Great Depression, alot of truly grim things happened. Yet, kids weren't going on rampages.
So, what has changed?
I remember my father talking about growing up in the Thirties. I remember the stories about moldy vegetables, about his father poaching deer to keep the family alive, about pulling an abcessed tooth with a string and the front door because there was no money for a dentist, about what having different colored skin than the majority meant. Yet, I don't remember any tales of violence beyond schoolyard fights. I don't remember hearing about anyone ordering a pistol throught the mail, or dropping $2 at the store for a couple of sticks of 80%, and doing someone else in.
Maybe if we start looking at the differences between the way we are now, and the way we were, we can find what is wrong.
This is pretty durn obvious. No fighting force has ever been defeated by any "wonder weapon". (Japan in WW2, you ask? Look at the campaigns that led up to the bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki.) If a group or nation has the will to fight, nothing except troops on the mud will defeat them.
One historical example come to mind: WW1: In what was probably the greatest demonstration of skill-at-arms ever, Sgt. Alvin York, US Army, captured an entire German machinegun battalion. He did this alone, armed with a five-shot rifle and a seven-shot pistol.
At the time, the machinegun was the "ultimate weapon". It commanded the terrain for 500 yards, killing all in its path. The machinegun was the primary reason that WW1 was reduced to "trench warfare"--everyone was scared of 'em!
Today's "wonder weapons" are no different. A smart bomb still isn't smart enough to kill one rifleman. And it's the still the rifleman that carries the day.
Slashdot Mirror
Any use of encryption with a greater than X strength (40 bits, maybe), will require a government licence and registration. Illegal possession and/or distribution of said cyrptography will get you a stiff jail term.
Any bets?
The governments of Australia and the UK, for starters. What better way to enforce their draconian anti-privacy/anti-Internet laws than to have everyone given a number? Heck, there's quite a few politicians here in the US (Sen. Feinstein) who'd just love to see this come about.
So very right, but at the same time, so very wrong. In an ideal world, you are perfectly right: a democracy is ruled by the majority(who are presumably right, kind, and just) delegating their powers to representatives(who are presumably even kinder and juster). However, in practice things don't always work out this way. Sometimes, you have what is known as "tyranny of the majority", where the majority uses their democratic power to oppress the minority. The Jim Crow laws that sprang up after the Civil War typify this. Certainly this was pure democracy in action -- the legislators doing what their constituents wanted. These laws, coupled with the resurgence ofThe KKK, made it very uncomfortable to be a political(and, in this case, racial) minority in much of this country for quite a time. Democracy in Action!
However, the founders of the US had thought of this, and set down the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is specifically intended to preserve individual liberty, even at the cost of pure majority rule.
Of course, in practice, this hasn't always worked so well (see above). It seems that no matter how many times freedoms are written down, even on real paper, they can be stolen by the government and/or antagonistic fellow citizens.
Only one thing stands between the black sharecropper and the Klan, between the Warsaw Jew and the Nazis, between any oppressed minority and the pogrom. It is the one thing the Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto tried desperately to aquire, the one thing that was immediately taken from free blacks in the South, the one thing that every tyrant fears: a gun.
All too often, in America and elsewhere, personal weapons have meant the difference between liberty and slavery, between life and death. Remember the words of Martin Niemoller: "In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Do you think this would have happened if every Communist, Jew, trade unionist, Catholic, and Protestant had had a gun and ammunition? Of course, one of the first things Hitler did was register, and then later confiscate, almost every priately-owned firearm in Germany.
Maybe I'm just another crazy American obsessed with guns. Maybe this time, for real, cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die, government is really kind and benevolent. Maybe you will put your faith in them, and vote, and hope that this time, they won't take away quite so many of your rights.
And maybe, it will be because you have no other choice.
-----------
And you base these statements on what, exactly? Have you ever visited the US? Lived here?
>I would sleep a lot better if their guns were taken away from them.
Why? Do you believe that they threaten you over there in Europe?
>People in militias are people who are plainly to stupid and ignorant to join a political party and use their constitutional right to change the system in a civilized way.
Again, what do you base this on?
>My government (in the netherlands in case you wonder) should protect me from this kind of people, that's what I vote for and that's why I pay my taxes.
Historically, most governments, the US included, haven't been so kind to their people, even those that vote and pay their taxes. That's why we have a written Constitution, which includes provisions specifically designed to limit the government's power over it's citizens. Such things as freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, freedom to own and carry personal weapons, freedom from self-incrimination, etc..., keep the government chained down. That's why they try to pre-empt them at every opportunity.
-----------
It holds up only as long as you have the means to protect your rights. As the origional post on this thread mentioned, this means guns.
Check out The Racist Roots of Gun Control,
and read this interview with a Holocaust survior.
-----------
But, a "right" is not something that your massa gives you -- it is something that you are born with! Just because it is illegal, does not mean that it does not exist. Remember the bit about "These truths we hold self-evident, that all men are created equal..."?
As for the civilians vs. military, check out the following conflicts:
American Revolution
Boer War
Vietnam
Afghanistan
In short, the most important quality for a fighting force is will, or morale. All of the tanks/planes/bombs in the world do nothing for you if you won't use them. Look at What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army? for further thoughts.
-----------
I think that it's just too profitable to sue nowadays--in most cases the victim of a lawsuit just gives in, rather than face a possible multi-million dollar judgement against them. It works out to be cheaper that way.
It's the exact moral equivalent of a protection racket: buy your "fire insurance" for $100 a week, or your store mysteriously burns down. Oh, and don't bother with the cops, or you might fall down some stairs. Settle out of court, or we'll tie you up in litigation for years, and you'll probalby lose in front of some soft-headed jury, anyhow.
What can be done about it? Heck, I dunno. Maybe I can scrape up some cash and sue someone...
Jesus (if you believe in 'im) was "different". The signers of the Declaration of Independence were "different". Ghandi was "different".
Why is the attitude around here seem to be that people who deliberatly look and act different are somehow automatically superior to those who don't?
I haven't seen that at all. I would say that the "attitude" is that people just want to be left the hell alone, to be themselves. Yes, there is the feeling that "Since I don't persecute and abuse you I'm morally and intellectually superior to you.", but I think that's quite justified, don't you?
What good is "expressing ones individual identity" if everyone else thinks you are a freak, and treats you as such?
Because it gives you your self-respect. It says "I am ME! Not a name, a number, another drone! ME!."
how is society supposed to prevent future Littleton tragedies if they can't single out people who they suspect may have problems.
They could make them wear a yellow, six-pointed star on their chests...
Access to guns allowed these kids to do this.
Fifty years ago, you could buy a gun for ten bucks through the mail, yet kids weren't going on rampages.
Access to information about bombs allowed these kids to do this.
Fifty years ago, you could buy dynamite in the hardware store, yet kids weren't going on rampages.
Social pressures/hardship made these kids do this.
Fifty years ago, racial segregation was the norm in many parts of the country. During the Great Depression, alot of truly grim things happened. Yet, kids weren't going on rampages.
So, what has changed?
I remember my father talking about growing up in the Thirties. I remember the stories about moldy vegetables, about his father poaching deer to keep the family alive, about pulling an abcessed tooth with a string and the front door because there was no money for a dentist, about what having different colored skin than the majority meant. Yet, I don't remember any tales of violence beyond schoolyard fights. I don't remember hearing about anyone ordering a pistol throught the mail, or dropping $2 at the store for a couple of sticks of 80%, and doing someone else in.
Maybe if we start looking at the differences between the way we are now, and the way we were, we can find what is wrong.
One historical example come to mind: WW1: In what was probably the greatest demonstration of skill-at-arms ever, Sgt. Alvin York, US Army, captured an entire German machinegun battalion. He did this alone, armed with a five-shot rifle and a seven-shot pistol.
At the time, the machinegun was the "ultimate weapon". It commanded the terrain for 500 yards, killing all in its path. The machinegun was the primary reason that WW1 was reduced to "trench warfare"--everyone was scared of 'em!
Today's "wonder weapons" are no different. A smart bomb still isn't smart enough to kill one rifleman. And it's the still the rifleman that carries the day.
When I was stationed in Germany, there was Budweiser in the vending machines, but of course, it was $1.75/can.