Should I get paid every time they use "my" custom guitar amplifier on a paying gig, and should I get a cut from royalties from recordings done with the amp until I die?
No, but you should get paid every time someone buys your amp. Authors don't get paid every time someone read their book, only when they buy it. And then only 5-110% of the retail.
Anyway, it's apples and oranges. There isn't much of an analogy.
But why is it apples & oranges? That's part of the point.
Why should copyright holders be paid for their entire lives for one work? Why are they so different from any other creative people as a class?
Also, once I sell the amp, anyone can build a copy and I have no right to prevent it, unlike authors.
You also failed to address any of my other points. Like about how lifetime copyrights are in direct conflict with the whole reasoning behind why copyright was instituted in the first place.
Can you explain how a lifetime copyright encourages more works as opposed to a shorter term?
I have no problem with a living author reaping the benefits of writing a bestseller for his entire natural life, and his descendants for another 14 after that. If you have written a bunch of bestsellers when you were in your 40s and 50s, then should the income just cut off when you reach 70 and need the money, maybe not capable of writing any more even if you want to, while the books continue to sell and readers are enjoying them? The publishers are still making money from selling the books, but now they don't need to share the income with the author -- is that moral?
There are very few books that remain popular so long anyway. Look at a bestsellers' list from 20 years ago and see if you recognise any of them.
A more important reform would be some form of compulsory licensing, so if a book, (or movie, song, etc.) is out of print but still in copyright that there is some way to get the right to publish it, at a reasonable rate.
Why are authors, artists, movie studios, etc different from anyone else? Why is it they should get special protections beyond what was originally already provided for in law, and at a time when it took longer to make money as distribution was slower than it is today (no radio/TV/internet)?
So they might run out of money because they are sick/injured/whatever and be unable to work...how is that different than the same risks we all take of that happening?
I design and build custom vacuum-tube guitar amplifiers for pro/semi-pro guitarists. It's as much or more of an art form as it is engineering, as many times what sounds best isn't what is from an engineering standpoint 'correct'. It's as much a musical instrument as the guitar that's plugged into it. Even down to small details like the precise routing and positioning of wiring, the type/gauge, insulation type, combinations of electronic component brands,.etc etc. Learned skills and techniques that aren't patentable, unless an artist's brush stroke technique and similar are.
Should I get paid every time they use "my" custom guitar amplifier on a paying gig, and should I get a cut from royalties from recordings done with the amp until I die?
There's nothing special about copyright holders that entitles them to lifetime income from one work.
Copyright was *only* enacted to make sure *more* works were created, not to ensure non-production was rewarded. Rewarding them for *not* producing more works is completely contrary to the purpose for which copyright was created in the first place.
If you believe certain people should receive lifetime incomes for their work, then pass a law or amendment.
Don't attempt to warp copyright. You'll break it. Then we all lose.
Harlan is right. He does deserve to be paid for his work..... right up til he dies.
Gotta disagree here. Should be 14 yrs with option for an additional 14 yrs if the author/copyright owner pays a hefty fee prior to the original copyright expiration date. Whether or not the author is dead or alive.
Otherwise, Harlan needs to get off his ass and write another book if he wants another payday. Writing a popular/successful novel, song, etc etc was never meant to be an entitlement to a forever-minus-a-day gravy train.
That was why copyrights were created...to encourage the creation of more works. If it lasts until they die, why would an author/creator publish a second novel if their first one does extremely well and they're now rich with no need, financially, to create more works if they don't happen to be possessed by a burning need to endure the publishing process? Why not just retire to someplace like Tahiti and be done with all the publisher/editor/marketer madness and stress?
Get the oxy acetylene out all any stuck bolt needs is bit of heat.
Actually, the heat application idea isn't bad.
I would assume that normally, a piece of equipment being worked on such as the unit in question is typically oriented to put the work area in shade from the sun for the duration of the work to prevent blinding reflections and overheated suit cooling units.
I would suggest:
A> Loosen the bolts and then try re-tightening incrementally, going from bolt to bolt and tightening each a turn
If 'A' fails:
B> Rotate it sun-ward and let it heat in direct sunlight for a time, then loosen the problem bolt and try tightening again, possibly after again loosening all the other bolts several turns.
Hey, this ain't rocket science! (Which is probably why they're having so many problems. They don't need a Steve Urkel approach to the problem, they need a Bubba from the local garage approach.)
Maybe they can contract me to supply, at extreme cost, some of my amazing new "Buckyball Space-Lube(tm)"! ("It'll make yer missile slick!")
And if they act now, I'll DOUBLE the order! (Must pay additional shipping & handling to LEO)
That's right!
TWICE the balls for the same ridiculously-high price!
Just because something can be ceased by the government doesn't mean that you don't own it. By that logic nobody owns anything because the government could potentially take out a warrant or get a subpoena at any time in order to cease it. Now, if the government can just take it without you having the right to challenge the seizure, that would be a different matter altogether.
Apart from the differently-sane, people wouldn't normally say that they don't own anything.
Besides the Eminent Domain abuses issue under discussion as it pertains to how really illusory our individual rights to property have become in recent years, let me add for your edification another term:
Do a Google search. This power the government suddenly decided they have to do an end-run around the US Constitution has seen much abuse of late, especially in the eternal and still-failing-miserably "War On (some) Drugs (and 'those' people)".
You have the right to your property only so long as those with more wealth and/or power than you have allow it.
If one is "well-connected", your chances of the compensation being "fair" are much better (or even used as a windfall political payoff to private-sector cronies in some instances).
If you're not so well-connected, or a member of political opposition, your chances of "fair compensation" actually being fair are...slimmer.
Strat
Ah, a progressive suggestion if ever I've heard one!
Yes, quite progressive. Because some ani^H^H^H^Hpeople are more equal than others...
"Well, on the "can't be taken away" part, the SCOTUS has ruled "Not so much", if the government believes it can make more in revenue by taking your property away from you and giving your property to someone else."
True, that is one of the many questionable rulings that have come out of the recent Court. But the ruling that they can't take your property without fair compensation still holds. Theoretically, you should be able to get a comparable piece of property with that compensation.
Precisely, however, "fair compensation" is a matter of opinion, and may vary widely depending on the individual case, location, particular individuals in government performing the action, etc.
If one is "well-connected", your chances of the compensation being "fair" are much better (or even used as a windfall political payoff to private-sector cronies in some instances).
If you're not so well-connected, or a member of political opposition, your chances of "fair compensation" actually being fair are...slimmer.
I have property rights via common law and the Constitution, and even the Supreme Court says those can't be taken away.
Well, on the "can't be taken away" part, the SCOTUS has ruled "Not so much", if the government believes it can make more in revenue by taking your property away from you and giving your property to someone else.
"Sorry, but you're not using your property in such a way that results in us making as much in revenues than if we gave your property to this other person/entity. We're going to take that property away from you and give it to them. Sorry about your home/farm/shop that's been in your family for generations."
The problem with your plan - that we should throw away the only tool that can address the problem
This, I believe, is the root of our disagreement IMHO.
You believe that I mean to toss away the power and ability of the government to prosecute corporations and their officers/boardmembers that break the law, when that is the opposite of my goals.
I want to make sure there is a justice system and process in place that hasn't been totally compromised as it is now. Right now it doesn't matter how many new laws/regulations are put into place, as the entire system is corrupt and turns a blind eye and/or does a whitewash.
You can't bust powerful wrong-doers with a system that's in the wrong-doer's hands. That's why problems with corporate power are really problems with too much government corruption and power, as the government could seize all US assets of the wrong-doers, prosecute/try them, and throw them into prison if it had the will right now. It's the all-pervasive corruption through all the branches of government that prevents this from occurring.
You're trying to cut bait with a dull, rusty knife that is more likely to end up causing you injury than performing the job intended.
In that sense, you could say that I want to "sharpen my (government/justice system) axe, I'm here to sever (lawbreaker's) heads (metaphysically speaking)". Caveats in parentheses added so that I don't end up like Brandon Raub.
The TSA budget is $6.5 billion. Get rid of the TSA and their security theater and that will go a long way towards funding these scientific endeavors.
I realize defunding the TSA will immediately allow the hordes of terrorists lurking in our country to go into action, but that is a chance we'll have to take if we want to slow or halt the downward spiral of science in this country.
But Michael Chertoff has 25 scanners on his dresser.
Yeah 'cause the republitards are so invested in science eh ?
The Dems had full control of Congress and the WH for 2 years, and they still have the WH and the Senate. They spent staggering amounts of other people's money.
Funny how the "Party of Science!!" didn't see fit to bother spending any of that loot on these projects.
Heck, they still could. There's billions of (un)Stimulus money still unspent that Obama could use Executive Orders to direct a tiny fraction of towards these projects and fully fund them.
Actions speak louder than words, and the Dems through their actions are screaming that their political pals getting a boatload of our cash is far more important than science, despite what they say in their talking points on TV.
Truth be told, *neither* party really gives a rip about all that "science stuff" when it comes right down to it, if it doesn't give them some kind of political advantage and/or funnel some cash to an ally.
Stop being so blinded by (D) and (R) partisan distractions. It doesn't make you look smart. It makes you look like a mind-numbed drone.
It's a shame that the libertarians were hijacked by corporatists...
Where in the world do you get that from? I'm a small-'L' libertarian, probably the best short description would be "practical libertarian", in that I recognize that a "pure libertarian" (whatever that means) approach is not necessarily the best solution for every problem. The right tool for the job, and all that.
So far, I've not seen you offer or propose any solutions. It may not be perfect in every conceivable way, but the ideas I've outlined in my OP seems to beat everything else I've heard proposed so far. I'm always open to hearing others ideas for a solution.
One thing, though. I often hear people say that we need more laws and regulations, giving the government more power. The same government that everyone says is already owned by the corporations.
Passing more laws and enacting more regulations only gives the corporations more power to prevent anyone else from challenging their dominance (keeping out competition/start-ups) and giving them more power over you and your life, and removing choice while enriching themselves at the taxpayers' expense.
Any solution depending on a corrupt government to somehow suddenly become a white knight in the fight against corporate lawbreakers by giving them expanded powers/resources/wealth and passing more laws & regulations is ignoring both the last 100 years of history and reality, and is doomed to fail miserably.
Make government weaker than the corporations, and the corporations will effectively become the government.
Government is *always* stronger than private corporations, unless corporations somehow surprise the world like in a Bond movie and have a "secret army" or some nonsense.
Government controls the courts and the police/FBI. The DoJ/justice system. They pass the laws. They have the US military, all branches. The TLAs. Prisons.
Drones.
Cruise missiles.
The bomb.
They have the monopoly on the use of force.
Now, please tell me how the corporations are going to "force" the government to do ANYthing!?
It's precisely the government that the corporations use to exercise their power over you, your life, and our society, and so it is government whose scope and power needs to be reduced.
That doesn't mean gut the ability to prosecute corporate lawbreakers.
It's just less ability for those lawbreakers to control you through the government and it's endless laws, regulations, etc and expand their control over more and more aspects of your life.
They can't buy influence over the use of a government power over your life that doesn't exist.
Specific skills with Windows is irrelevant, at least for the early resume/application-culling passes.
Even more important than their skill level, experience, or schooling is the seemingly increasingly-rare ability to actually show up on time every day/shift to work, and work the entire day/shift.
I would much rather hire someone who would need significant OJT than an "expert", if that "expert" had a history of missed work days and late arrivals to/early departures from work and the OJT candidate had a pristine record for attendance and timeliness.
Only *after* you've gone through the resumes/apps and have a candidate-group who have a solid history of reliability and timeliness do you start worrying about individual skills, experience, and schooling.
I've learned this over decades of hiring people for a wide variety of fields, from general construction/factory labor and retail sales, to cutting-edge tech jobs.
When it comes to hiring help in any field, dependability/reliability is king! Everything else is secondary.
Which is precisely why people are recording police stops and posting them online. They are trying to make the LE real-world reality for those they interact with more closely resemble the world of limited powers granted LE by the laws and citizen's constitutional rights LE are legally bound by.
That said, I wouldn't advise trying any of the things those in the videos get away with without video recording and witnesses. It's far too easy for things to end badly even with video rolling and witnesses on the scene. Even multiple witnesses and video recording rolling is no guarantee against police abuse or even being killed.
I'm a bit more optimistic than this but should the singularity occur you might as well not worry about the details of what comes after as by definition it's unpredictable.
I'm not at all, looking at just the USA and what companies like Monsanto, GSK and Kaiser Permanente have been able to get away with and also get legislated to protect their interests at the expense of everyone else, I'm not optimistic at all.
If we accept that all human beings have weaknesses, fears, failings, and that no individual or finite group is impervious to corruption and/or compromise/influence/pressure, then logic says that the only realistic option to avoid most of the worst of corporate and other influence/corruption/compromise of the government is to make the central government as small and weak as practical, and keep as much of the local day-to-day governance as local and answerable to the people as possible.
Decentralization, baby! Like the way the internet was intended to work, damage/corruption is routed around until repairs are effected.
That way the Monsantos, GSKs, and Kaiser Permanentes of the world won't be able to buy influence over the entire nation in one spot from a relatively-small number of the very very powerful in the Federal government like a "supermarket of sleaze", but would have to influence/corrupt/bribe many, many city/county/state governments and officials/legislative bodies across the country and keep all those illegal acts from becoming widely known and drawing prosecution. A much more expensive, time-consuming, and risky proposition. It would thus help reduce the risks of corruption of the singularity from those sources and help tilt the scales a fraction more towards a more benign outcome.
Look, we've all generally agreed and acknowledged that politicians are all ambitious, greedy, power-hungry sleazebags that can and will, given the chance, bring that painting of a boot crushing a human face forever to reality. And yes, that includes "your guy", too.
Given that, wouldn't it be wise to keep the ones with the most power and ability to control you and your life within easy arm's-reach where you can nip their overreaches and encroachments on your wealth, security, free speech, and freedom in the bud? Keep in mind also that it's much harder for them to go astray if they've got to face the people they're governing across their own backyard fences, their kids go to the same school, etc etc.
As a side-benefit, it would also tend to greatly reduce the power and influence of the two major national political parties and severely reduce the ability of a relatively few national party leaders to dictate to the rest. It's possible it could even allow the emergence of a third party or even more.
It also coincidentally assures some variety in the style, flavor, and feel of governance from place to place across the nation and thus there is a better chance one can find a place to live with governance that accommodates one's religious, cultural, and political beliefs to a sufficient degree.
This, I believe, would also greatly increase the chances for a more-positive outcome from the singularity by assuring a variety of views, cultures, and beliefs, thus avoiding a monoculture of tyranny.
You've never been stopped and made to produce ID for no good reason while walking down the street?
LE can ask, but you are not legally required to produce ID just walking down the street and without probable cause and/or suspicion of that individual having just committed a crime or you are suspected of being about to commit a crime by the "reasonable person" test. If asked, you are required to tell them your name & home address, but that's all. You are not legally required to produce ID or tell them anything else, period.
In states that allow the open-carry of a firearm, it's been ruled that even then you are not required to provide ID if you are on foot and otherwise not suspected of just committing a crime or engaging in actions that would lead a reasonable person to believe you are about to commit crime.
Just search YT for "cops/police illegally demand ID" "OC" and "open carry". There are hundreds of videos of LEOs demanding ID, but being told by the subject that they refuse to produce ID, and are confronted with the laws by informed citizens.
Then how would you encourage this sort of behavior?
To not do so will mean a huge shock when oil prices finally do rise. The economic outcome will not be pretty.
Alternative fuels, hybrid/electric cars, etc, won't be adopted until they can at minimum compete both price and efficiency-wise and do the same jobs and exhibit the characteristics consumers want at least as well.
Otherwise you end up with Chevy Volts.
You can't legislate/tax it into existence. History teaches that such schemes almost always backfire badly and create negative unintended consequences.
As an example, the requirements for low-flow toilets has actually created a black market for *toilets*! I was watching a cable show following southern border patrol and customs agents where several border/customs agents at a crossing point in either TX or CA (don't recall) were actually spending time inspecting and impounding a Mexican semi trailer full of toilets that didn't meet the low-flow requirements.
As if we didn't have enough to deal with, we now have created a Mexican Toilet-Smuggling Cartel, for chrissakes!! Not to mention turning US Border Patrol & Customs into the "Potty Police"!!
Rather than smuggling toilets, you know they could just buy higher pressure units right?
The fact that people would rather break the law than spend $20 extra on a toilet says something about our society I think.
I also notice you failed to address any of the other points I made in reply to your post, and focused in on only a portion of my reply that didn't address the main points of the discussion.
Can you tell me how many Federal laws there are in force? If you can, better tell Congress, as nobody there can tell you how many there are, even to within a couple thousand.
If nobody even knows how many there are, never mind what they criminalize, and seeing as how they range from strange laws from the 1700s/1800s to the present, how do you know you're not a criminal?
Ask any Federal LE agent or Federal prosecutor. They CAN find something to bust you on, even if you've never knowingly violated any laws that you're aware of.
And the individual States are as bad or worse in their own right.
There needs to be some kind of Constitutional Amendment or something that forces Congress to repeal 10 old laws for every single new law they want to pass. Same for the States.
"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood." - James Madison
I keep hearing that but no one so far has been able to identify one felony I commit.
Please do clear that up for me.
That's the point. It can't be "cleared up". Even the Federal government can't tell you so much as how many Federal laws there are, never mind what they cover. They lost count long ago.
You are free to annoy the government until some official/LEO decides to find a law to prosecute you with. They never seem to have a problem finding one, which is the point.
Freedom is relative. To have a society we have to give up some freedom, like say shooting at random folks. I do not think being required to not waste water is that odious. I think the "fuck you, I got mine" concept that seems so popular is a far bigger problem for our society.
For there to be individual freedom in anything but name only, there needs to be limits on how much freedom and choice that may be taken away in the name of the collective. If the good of the collective is supreme, then there is no individual freedom or choice, there is only the tyranny of the collective.
Sadly, anyone who tries to stand up for such limits is immediately painted by those such as yourself, as you just did, as selfish "fuck you I've got mine" types.
Rather than smuggling toilets, you know they could just buy higher pressure units right?
The fact that people would rather break the law than spend $20 extra on a toilet says something about our society I think.
You're surprised that stupid laws are ignored? You yourself are almost certainly guilty of breaking multiple laws, including felonies. As are most Americans. There are so many stupid, idiotic laws on the books that it's nearly impossible to live without breaking multiple laws.
After decades of this idiocy people stop caring about the laws, because it's pointless. You're almost certainly a criminal anyways. It's only a matter of if the government decides to single you out for enforcement because it suits their agendas or you annoy someone in government somehow.
The fact that the government thinks it has any business telling private citizens in a free country what type of freaking *toilet* they may legally buy says a whole lot more about our society, none of it good.
Then how would you encourage this sort of behavior?
To not do so will mean a huge shock when oil prices finally do rise. The economic outcome will not be pretty.
Alternative fuels, hybrid/electric cars, etc, won't be adopted until they can at minimum compete both price and efficiency-wise and do the same jobs and exhibit the characteristics consumers want at least as well.
Otherwise you end up with Chevy Volts.
You can't legislate/tax it into existence. History teaches that such schemes almost always backfire badly and create negative unintended consequences.
As an example, the requirements for low-flow toilets has actually created a black market for *toilets*! I was watching a cable show following southern border patrol and customs agents where several border/customs agents at a crossing point in either TX or CA (don't recall) were actually spending time inspecting and impounding a Mexican semi trailer full of toilets that didn't meet the low-flow requirements.
As if we didn't have enough to deal with, we now have created a Mexican Toilet-Smuggling Cartel, for chrissakes!! Not to mention turning US Border Patrol & Customs into the "Potty Police"!!
A bit of Googling brings up tons of horror stories, news articles, blog posts, and discussions/debates. Those were just a few of the top results. The YT link is to a Stossel interview with Scott Bullock from the Institute for Justice.
What you're talking about is actually civil forfeiture.
Gah!
Of course, you are correct and I wasn't awake enough to be posting.:)
Yeah, it's something one would only expect out of some corrupt dictator-run banana republic, not a 1st-World "free" country.
Had a friend that lost $1200 that way that got pulled over for a bad brake light while on his way to buy a vintage guitar from an individual. The probable cause? The officer "smelled marijuana", strangely, after he discovered the cash in the bank envelope laying on the console. My friend had also had a minor misdemeanor marijuana possession charge (ticket/fine) a couple years previous. Something the officer may well have been aware of before he even approached the vehicle, after running the plates and owner prior to the stop.
Maybe it was all for the best for the PD, as coincidentally, the department had a couple of shiny, brand-new parked cruisers set on fire and totaled a few weeks later. That $1200 may have helped defray at least a small part of the replacement costs. Such a tragedy. They never found those responsible, as far as I know.
Slashdot Mirror
But why is it apples & oranges? That's part of the point.
Why should copyright holders be paid for their entire lives for one work? Why are they so different from any other creative people as a class?
Also, once I sell the amp, anyone can build a copy and I have no right to prevent it, unlike authors.
You also failed to address any of my other points. Like about how lifetime copyrights are in direct conflict with the whole reasoning behind why copyright was instituted in the first place.
Can you explain how a lifetime copyright encourages more works as opposed to a shorter term?
Strat
I have no problem with a living author reaping the benefits of writing a bestseller for his entire natural life, and his descendants for another 14 after that. If you have written a bunch of bestsellers when you were in your 40s and 50s, then should the income just cut off when you reach 70 and need the money, maybe not capable of writing any more even if you want to, while the books continue to sell and readers are enjoying them? The publishers are still making money from selling the books, but now they don't need to share the income with the author -- is that moral?
There are very few books that remain popular so long anyway. Look at a bestsellers' list from 20 years ago and see if you recognise any of them.
A more important reform would be some form of compulsory licensing, so if a book, (or movie, song, etc.) is out of print but still in copyright that there is some way to get the right to publish it, at a reasonable rate.
Why are authors, artists, movie studios, etc different from anyone else? Why is it they should get special protections beyond what was originally already provided for in law, and at a time when it took longer to make money as distribution was slower than it is today (no radio/TV/internet)?
So they might run out of money because they are sick/injured/whatever and be unable to work...how is that different than the same risks we all take of that happening?
I design and build custom vacuum-tube guitar amplifiers for pro/semi-pro guitarists. It's as much or more of an art form as it is engineering, as many times what sounds best isn't what is from an engineering standpoint 'correct'. It's as much a musical instrument as the guitar that's plugged into it. Even down to small details like the precise routing and positioning of wiring, the type/gauge, insulation type, combinations of electronic component brands,.etc etc. Learned skills and techniques that aren't patentable, unless an artist's brush stroke technique and similar are.
Should I get paid every time they use "my" custom guitar amplifier on a paying gig, and should I get a cut from royalties from recordings done with the amp until I die?
There's nothing special about copyright holders that entitles them to lifetime income from one work.
Copyright was *only* enacted to make sure *more* works were created, not to ensure non-production was rewarded. Rewarding them for *not* producing more works is completely contrary to the purpose for which copyright was created in the first place.
If you believe certain people should receive lifetime incomes for their work, then pass a law or amendment.
Don't attempt to warp copyright. You'll break it. Then we all lose.
Strat
Harlan is right. He does deserve to be paid for his work..... right up til he dies.
Gotta disagree here. Should be 14 yrs with option for an additional 14 yrs if the author/copyright owner pays a hefty fee prior to the original copyright expiration date. Whether or not the author is dead or alive.
Otherwise, Harlan needs to get off his ass and write another book if he wants another payday. Writing a popular/successful novel, song, etc etc was never meant to be an entitlement to a forever-minus-a-day gravy train.
That was why copyrights were created...to encourage the creation of more works. If it lasts until they die, why would an author/creator publish a second novel if their first one does extremely well and they're now rich with no need, financially, to create more works if they don't happen to be possessed by a burning need to endure the publishing process? Why not just retire to someplace like Tahiti and be done with all the publisher/editor/marketer madness and stress?
Strat
Get the oxy acetylene out all any stuck bolt needs is bit of heat.
Actually, the heat application idea isn't bad.
I would assume that normally, a piece of equipment being worked on such as the unit in question is typically oriented to put the work area in shade from the sun for the duration of the work to prevent blinding reflections and overheated suit cooling units.
I would suggest:
A> Loosen the bolts and then try re-tightening incrementally, going from bolt to bolt and tightening each a turn
If 'A' fails:
B> Rotate it sun-ward and let it heat in direct sunlight for a time, then loosen the problem bolt and try tightening again, possibly after again loosening all the other bolts several turns.
Hey, this ain't rocket science! (Which is probably why they're having so many problems. They don't need a Steve Urkel approach to the problem, they need a Bubba from the local garage approach.)
Maybe they can contract me to supply, at extreme cost, some of my amazing new "Buckyball Space-Lube(tm)"! ("It'll make yer missile slick!")
And if they act now, I'll DOUBLE the order! (Must pay additional shipping & handling to LEO)
That's right!
TWICE the balls for the same ridiculously-high price!
CALL NOW!!
Strat :)
Just because something can be ceased by the government doesn't mean that you don't own it. By that logic nobody owns anything because the government could potentially take out a warrant or get a subpoena at any time in order to cease it. Now, if the government can just take it without you having the right to challenge the seizure, that would be a different matter altogether.
Apart from the differently-sane, people wouldn't normally say that they don't own anything.
Besides the Eminent Domain abuses issue under discussion as it pertains to how really illusory our individual rights to property have become in recent years, let me add for your edification another term:
Civil asset forfeiture.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture
Do a Google search. This power the government suddenly decided they have to do an end-run around the US Constitution has seen much abuse of late, especially in the eternal and still-failing-miserably "War On (some) Drugs (and 'those' people)".
You have the right to your property only so long as those with more wealth and/or power than you have allow it.
Strat
Apologies.
Just to be clear, I'm agreeing and carrying the idea forward.
After posting it and looking at it, I realized it could possibly be misinterpreted as an attack, which it's not.
Carry on!
Yes, quite progressive. Because some ani^H^H^H^Hpeople are more equal than others...
Right?
Strat
Precisely, however, "fair compensation" is a matter of opinion, and may vary widely depending on the individual case, location, particular individuals in government performing the action, etc.
If one is "well-connected", your chances of the compensation being "fair" are much better (or even used as a windfall political payoff to private-sector cronies in some instances).
If you're not so well-connected, or a member of political opposition, your chances of "fair compensation" actually being fair are...slimmer.
Strat
I have property rights via common law and the Constitution, and even the Supreme Court says those can't be taken away.
Well, on the "can't be taken away" part, the SCOTUS has ruled "Not so much", if the government believes it can make more in revenue by taking your property away from you and giving your property to someone else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
"Sorry, but you're not using your property in such a way that results in us making as much in revenues than if we gave your property to this other person/entity. We're going to take that property away from you and give it to them. Sorry about your home/farm/shop that's been in your family for generations."
"You don't own that!"
Strat
The problem with your plan - that we should throw away the only tool that can address the problem
This, I believe, is the root of our disagreement IMHO.
You believe that I mean to toss away the power and ability of the government to prosecute corporations and their officers/boardmembers that break the law, when that is the opposite of my goals.
I want to make sure there is a justice system and process in place that hasn't been totally compromised as it is now. Right now it doesn't matter how many new laws/regulations are put into place, as the entire system is corrupt and turns a blind eye and/or does a whitewash.
You can't bust powerful wrong-doers with a system that's in the wrong-doer's hands. That's why problems with corporate power are really problems with too much government corruption and power, as the government could seize all US assets of the wrong-doers, prosecute/try them, and throw them into prison if it had the will right now. It's the all-pervasive corruption through all the branches of government that prevents this from occurring.
You're trying to cut bait with a dull, rusty knife that is more likely to end up causing you injury than performing the job intended.
In that sense, you could say that I want to "sharpen my (government/justice system) axe, I'm here to sever (lawbreaker's) heads (metaphysically speaking)". Caveats in parentheses added so that I don't end up like Brandon Raub.
Strat
The TSA budget is $6.5 billion. Get rid of the TSA and their security theater and that will go a long way towards funding these scientific endeavors.
I realize defunding the TSA will immediately allow the hordes of terrorists lurking in our country to go into action, but that is a chance we'll have to take if we want to slow or halt the downward spiral of science in this country.
But Michael Chertoff has 25 scanners on his dresser.
He got to get paid.
Strat
Yeah 'cause the republitards are so invested in science eh ?
The Dems had full control of Congress and the WH for 2 years, and they still have the WH and the Senate. They spent staggering amounts of other people's money.
Funny how the "Party of Science!!" didn't see fit to bother spending any of that loot on these projects.
Heck, they still could. There's billions of (un)Stimulus money still unspent that Obama could use Executive Orders to direct a tiny fraction of towards these projects and fully fund them.
Actions speak louder than words, and the Dems through their actions are screaming that their political pals getting a boatload of our cash is far more important than science, despite what they say in their talking points on TV.
Truth be told, *neither* party really gives a rip about all that "science stuff" when it comes right down to it, if it doesn't give them some kind of political advantage and/or funnel some cash to an ally.
Stop being so blinded by (D) and (R) partisan distractions. It doesn't make you look smart. It makes you look like a mind-numbed drone.
Strat
It's a shame that the libertarians were hijacked by corporatists...
Where in the world do you get that from? I'm a small-'L' libertarian, probably the best short description would be "practical libertarian", in that I recognize that a "pure libertarian" (whatever that means) approach is not necessarily the best solution for every problem. The right tool for the job, and all that.
So far, I've not seen you offer or propose any solutions. It may not be perfect in every conceivable way, but the ideas I've outlined in my OP seems to beat everything else I've heard proposed so far. I'm always open to hearing others ideas for a solution.
One thing, though. I often hear people say that we need more laws and regulations, giving the government more power. The same government that everyone says is already owned by the corporations.
Passing more laws and enacting more regulations only gives the corporations more power to prevent anyone else from challenging their dominance (keeping out competition/start-ups) and giving them more power over you and your life, and removing choice while enriching themselves at the taxpayers' expense.
Any solution depending on a corrupt government to somehow suddenly become a white knight in the fight against corporate lawbreakers by giving them expanded powers/resources/wealth and passing more laws & regulations is ignoring both the last 100 years of history and reality, and is doomed to fail miserably.
Strat
Make government weaker than the corporations, and the corporations will effectively become the government.
Government is *always* stronger than private corporations, unless corporations somehow surprise the world like in a Bond movie and have a "secret army" or some nonsense.
Government controls the courts and the police/FBI. The DoJ/justice system. They pass the laws. They have the US military, all branches. The TLAs. Prisons.
Drones.
Cruise missiles.
The bomb.
They have the monopoly on the use of force.
Now, please tell me how the corporations are going to "force" the government to do ANYthing!?
It's precisely the government that the corporations use to exercise their power over you, your life, and our society, and so it is government whose scope and power needs to be reduced.
That doesn't mean gut the ability to prosecute corporate lawbreakers.
It's just less ability for those lawbreakers to control you through the government and it's endless laws, regulations, etc and expand their control over more and more aspects of your life.
They can't buy influence over the use of a government power over your life that doesn't exist.
Strat
Specific skills with Windows is irrelevant, at least for the early resume/application-culling passes.
Even more important than their skill level, experience, or schooling is the seemingly increasingly-rare ability to actually show up on time every day/shift to work, and work the entire day/shift.
I would much rather hire someone who would need significant OJT than an "expert", if that "expert" had a history of missed work days and late arrivals to/early departures from work and the OJT candidate had a pristine record for attendance and timeliness.
Only *after* you've gone through the resumes/apps and have a candidate-group who have a solid history of reliability and timeliness do you start worrying about individual skills, experience, and schooling.
I've learned this over decades of hiring people for a wide variety of fields, from general construction/factory labor and retail sales, to cutting-edge tech jobs.
When it comes to hiring help in any field, dependability/reliability is king! Everything else is secondary.
Strat
laws and reality are two different things
Which is precisely why people are recording police stops and posting them online. They are trying to make the LE real-world reality for those they interact with more closely resemble the world of limited powers granted LE by the laws and citizen's constitutional rights LE are legally bound by.
That said, I wouldn't advise trying any of the things those in the videos get away with without video recording and witnesses. It's far too easy for things to end badly even with video rolling and witnesses on the scene. Even multiple witnesses and video recording rolling is no guarantee against police abuse or even being killed.
Strat
If we accept that all human beings have weaknesses, fears, failings, and that no individual or finite group is impervious to corruption and/or compromise/influence/pressure, then logic says that the only realistic option to avoid most of the worst of corporate and other influence/corruption/compromise of the government is to make the central government as small and weak as practical, and keep as much of the local day-to-day governance as local and answerable to the people as possible.
Decentralization, baby! Like the way the internet was intended to work, damage/corruption is routed around until repairs are effected.
That way the Monsantos, GSKs, and Kaiser Permanentes of the world won't be able to buy influence over the entire nation in one spot from a relatively-small number of the very very powerful in the Federal government like a "supermarket of sleaze", but would have to influence/corrupt/bribe many, many city/county/state governments and officials/legislative bodies across the country and keep all those illegal acts from becoming widely known and drawing prosecution. A much more expensive, time-consuming, and risky proposition. It would thus help reduce the risks of corruption of the singularity from those sources and help tilt the scales a fraction more towards a more benign outcome.
Look, we've all generally agreed and acknowledged that politicians are all ambitious, greedy, power-hungry sleazebags that can and will, given the chance, bring that painting of a boot crushing a human face forever to reality. And yes, that includes "your guy", too.
Given that, wouldn't it be wise to keep the ones with the most power and ability to control you and your life within easy arm's-reach where you can nip their overreaches and encroachments on your wealth, security, free speech, and freedom in the bud? Keep in mind also that it's much harder for them to go astray if they've got to face the people they're governing across their own backyard fences, their kids go to the same school, etc etc.
As a side-benefit, it would also tend to greatly reduce the power and influence of the two major national political parties and severely reduce the ability of a relatively few national party leaders to dictate to the rest. It's possible it could even allow the emergence of a third party or even more.
It also coincidentally assures some variety in the style, flavor, and feel of governance from place to place across the nation and thus there is a better chance one can find a place to live with governance that accommodates one's religious, cultural, and political beliefs to a sufficient degree.
This, I believe, would also greatly increase the chances for a more-positive outcome from the singularity by assuring a variety of views, cultures, and beliefs, thus avoiding a monoculture of tyranny.
Strat
You've never been stopped and made to produce ID for no good reason while walking down the street?
LE can ask, but you are not legally required to produce ID just walking down the street and without probable cause and/or suspicion of that individual having just committed a crime or you are suspected of being about to commit a crime by the "reasonable person" test. If asked, you are required to tell them your name & home address, but that's all. You are not legally required to produce ID or tell them anything else, period.
In states that allow the open-carry of a firearm, it's been ruled that even then you are not required to provide ID if you are on foot and otherwise not suspected of just committing a crime or engaging in actions that would lead a reasonable person to believe you are about to commit crime.
Just search YT for "cops/police illegally demand ID" "OC" and "open carry". There are hundreds of videos of LEOs demanding ID, but being told by the subject that they refuse to produce ID, and are confronted with the laws by informed citizens.
IANAL, YMMV, etc etc
Strat
I also notice you failed to address any of the other points I made in reply to your post, and focused in on only a portion of my reply that didn't address the main points of the discussion.
Duck & dodge fail.
Strat
So you can't even name one?
http://tjshome.com/dumblaws.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/02/17-ridiculous-laws-still_n_481379.html
Can you tell me how many Federal laws there are in force? If you can, better tell Congress, as nobody there can tell you how many there are, even to within a couple thousand.
If nobody even knows how many there are, never mind what they criminalize, and seeing as how they range from strange laws from the 1700s/1800s to the present, how do you know you're not a criminal?
Ask any Federal LE agent or Federal prosecutor. They CAN find something to bust you on, even if you've never knowingly violated any laws that you're aware of.
And the individual States are as bad or worse in their own right.
There needs to be some kind of Constitutional Amendment or something that forces Congress to repeal 10 old laws for every single new law they want to pass. Same for the States.
"It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood." - James Madison
Strat
I keep hearing that but no one so far has been able to identify one felony I commit.
Please do clear that up for me.
That's the point. It can't be "cleared up". Even the Federal government can't tell you so much as how many Federal laws there are, never mind what they cover. They lost count long ago.
You are free to annoy the government until some official/LEO decides to find a law to prosecute you with. They never seem to have a problem finding one, which is the point.
Freedom is relative. To have a society we have to give up some freedom, like say shooting at random folks. I do not think being required to not waste water is that odious. I think the "fuck you, I got mine" concept that seems so popular is a far bigger problem for our society.
For there to be individual freedom in anything but name only, there needs to be limits on how much freedom and choice that may be taken away in the name of the collective. If the good of the collective is supreme, then there is no individual freedom or choice, there is only the tyranny of the collective.
Sadly, anyone who tries to stand up for such limits is immediately painted by those such as yourself, as you just did, as selfish "fuck you I've got mine" types.
Strat
Rather than smuggling toilets, you know they could just buy higher pressure units right?
The fact that people would rather break the law than spend $20 extra on a toilet says something about our society I think.
You're surprised that stupid laws are ignored? You yourself are almost certainly guilty of breaking multiple laws, including felonies. As are most Americans. There are so many stupid, idiotic laws on the books that it's nearly impossible to live without breaking multiple laws.
After decades of this idiocy people stop caring about the laws, because it's pointless. You're almost certainly a criminal anyways. It's only a matter of if the government decides to single you out for enforcement because it suits their agendas or you annoy someone in government somehow.
The fact that the government thinks it has any business telling private citizens in a free country what type of freaking *toilet* they may legally buy says a whole lot more about our society, none of it good.
Strat
Then how would you encourage this sort of behavior?
To not do so will mean a huge shock when oil prices finally do rise. The economic outcome will not be pretty.
Alternative fuels, hybrid/electric cars, etc, won't be adopted until they can at minimum compete both price and efficiency-wise and do the same jobs and exhibit the characteristics consumers want at least as well.
Otherwise you end up with Chevy Volts.
You can't legislate/tax it into existence. History teaches that such schemes almost always backfire badly and create negative unintended consequences.
As an example, the requirements for low-flow toilets has actually created a black market for *toilets*! I was watching a cable show following southern border patrol and customs agents where several border/customs agents at a crossing point in either TX or CA (don't recall) were actually spending time inspecting and impounding a Mexican semi trailer full of toilets that didn't meet the low-flow requirements.
As if we didn't have enough to deal with, we now have created a Mexican Toilet-Smuggling Cartel, for chrissakes!! Not to mention turning US Border Patrol & Customs into the "Potty Police"!!
Strat
*Citation needed*
Seriously, I'd be interested, but I've never heard of any incidents like you drscirbe.
Done and done.
http://www.ij.org/texas-civil-forfeiture-background
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202447265145&Report_Blasts_States_for_Abusing_Civil_Forfeiture_Laws&slreturn=20120729114549
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLSz_p7Q1lg
A bit of Googling brings up tons of horror stories, news articles, blog posts, and discussions/debates. Those were just a few of the top results. The YT link is to a Stossel interview with Scott Bullock from the Institute for Justice.
Strat
What you're talking about is actually civil forfeiture.
Gah!
Of course, you are correct and I wasn't awake enough to be posting. :)
Yeah, it's something one would only expect out of some corrupt dictator-run banana republic, not a 1st-World "free" country.
Had a friend that lost $1200 that way that got pulled over for a bad brake light while on his way to buy a vintage guitar from an individual. The probable cause? The officer "smelled marijuana", strangely, after he discovered the cash in the bank envelope laying on the console. My friend had also had a minor misdemeanor marijuana possession charge (ticket/fine) a couple years previous. Something the officer may well have been aware of before he even approached the vehicle, after running the plates and owner prior to the stop.
Maybe it was all for the best for the PD, as coincidentally, the department had a couple of shiny, brand-new parked cruisers set on fire and totaled a few weeks later. That $1200 may have helped defray at least a small part of the replacement costs. Such a tragedy. They never found those responsible, as far as I know.
Strat