"Ceballos had a difference of opinion with his superiors about how to handle a case (he was a deputy district attorney for L.A. County). I don't see how this makes him a whistleblower. He wasn't revealing corruption. He disagreed with his boss(es) about the robustness of a search warrant affidavit. I imagine that happens all the time. I infer that he didn't handle this disagreement in a way that endeared him to his boss. His boss responded by transfering him, and denying him a promotion. These sound like reasoanble actions for a boss to take if he doesn't see eye-to-eye with an employee."
errmmm...If what he said was actually untrue, his boss could have sued him for slander.
So, let's say my boss is working for the government and commits fraud and I talk about it (even in a work related context). If my boss (or you) calls that a 'difference of opinion on how to spend public money' you would not see it as whistleblowing, because the wrongdoer refrases his fraud? (Because, note that no judge ever commented on the truthfulness of what the employee said). One may assume it would not be 'endearing' to my boss neither, in whatever way I put it. And thus, it is a reasonable action for him to transfer me and deny me a promotion?
It seems we have a difference of opinion what constitutes 'reasonable'. It's only reasonable for a person trying to cover his tracks, take revenge, or is simply amoral.
The parent poster was clearly being ironic, and I fail to see how people can miss that (unless you were being double ironic, but I somehow doubt that). Granted, some people recognise this sort of humor quicker than others, but at the time he gave the link to an *US ID* article, the irony should have been obvious to everybody (barring some bible-belt twats).
"Seriously, though, you're saying that the good of the individual should be sacrificed for the good of the majority."
He said no such thing.
The issue here was not: "it's worth killing 3000 people in the twin towers to keep our civil liberties", it is rather: "it's worth keeping our civil liberties, even after the killing of 3000 people".
"Before P2P a mix tape was the RI's biggest realistic threat, a threat buffered by the fact that there's a tariff on analog cassette tapes."
Ermm...there is a tariff on digital carriers too, you know. At least in europe.
The point I was trying to point out is, that one can hold the opinion it's not a matter of technology, nor of threat to the RIAA&co, but of the use that a person makes of it. One can easily say 'it used to be the only threat' etc., but lets not forget that the *IAA has ALWAYS fulminated against technologies they thought of as a threat - and that includes analoge systems, like VHS. Obviously, if they had succeeded in manipulating the law enough, we wouldn't be where we are today, with the consumer-rights we have. So, the treath (at least the perceived one) for them was augmented because copies were made possible. The same goes for when the radio and TV was created and mass-produced: they argued it was a huge threat too.
Now, history repeats itself, and a new technology has been born, and the *IAA are back at it again: claiming they'll go broke and that the threat is huge, etc. However, seen the reports that they actually didn't do that badly, and it's not clear if P2P are to blame (many d/l music they wouldn't buy otherwise anyway), and people still buy stuff if they perceive an added value in it, one can ponder whether these claims are true.
Anyway, as one can see in ANY of these cases, where new technology popped up, and the threat and damage was claimed to be huge, courts often decided in the interest of the new technology and consumer-rights, and did NOT accept the reasonings given by the *IAAs. Courts have decided on the legality of the use of technology; is it used commercially or not, etc? NOT about the technology itself, since, as I said, that would be foolish. Otherwise, each time a new technology will be created (and in our modern times, this happens frequently) one can't claim an action that was before completely legal, now suddenly becomes illegal.
So, I understand your claim about there being a difference, but as I said; one can reasonably be of the opinion that that doesn't matter all that much. There was much difference between buying a vinyl record, and the mass sending of the same music through the ether too. Should one have claimed radio should be forbidden?
No, I think the way it was handled made sense: they allowed it, and searched for mechanisms to compensate the artists (though it's often NOT the artists that get the gain).
And so, being pragmatic, should one forbid P2P? No, one should construct a mechanism in which the artists get compensated, and that's exactly what france tries to do. Most european countries already have taxes on digital cariers too, so the 'threat' already gets buffered in that respect. For pure online d/l (P2P) they now buffer the threat with asking a flat fee-tax.
All this seems reasonable and more in line with the history of new technologies vs. the *IAAs, then just to ouright forbid it, or making it illegal (even criminal, some voices lobby). This line of reasoning is self-defeating, however...I mean, we all know a large part of the population has d/l something that was copyrighted sometime in his life - now that we live in the information age, this hardly can be avoided. Is outlawing the technology, criminalising the users, fining (often huge) them, or throwing them in jail, and that for a considerable part of the populace, the answer?
Me thinks not, just as it wasn't for when a considerable part of the populace started using VHS-tapes to record stuff.
Instead, one should search for a way to uphold consumer-rights, to allow the use of P2P (which can't be stopped anyway), and to envisage a way of compensating the artists, just as they have always done in the past. It is refreshing to see France take a more rational approach than to fulminate against the technology and its users.
"Calling the current state of P2P apps "sharing" is still one of the most intelligence insulting stances I think a person could argue from."
Only beaten by the insult of calling it 'theft', which the RIAA often uses in its rethoric.
In any case, I fail to see the logic in your arguments; you consistently use 'bit for bit', as if the manner in which the copy is taken is detrimental. This, however, is an arbitrary opinion, not an inherent valid argument. As others, including courts, have argumented that it's not the technology used that matters, but the way the tool is used (for instance, for commercial gains or not). This shows, that your 'bit for bit' defence can reasonably be considered irrelevant.
Taken that fact and one doesn't subscribe to your premise, the copying of digital data is not different (in regard to it's use) then that of copying pages out of books, or copying films on VHS, etc. The courts in france came to same conclusion, and it's a logical one...otherwise, everytime the technology changes one could argue it's suddenly illegal to do things that were perfectly legal before.
"Was it a great example? Hardly, and I can accept that. In the 30 seconds or so I took to type out my reply, I didn't bother getting into hundreds of details and side issues all around - all the nuances of the argument. I didn't feel that in this context it was important."
An untenable notion, when the informal medium is slashdot!;-)
"Anyway - that is a much more detailed statement of my views and opinions on this stuff, complete with something of a useful way to measure what is not enough and what is too much."
Indeed, it is. Much obliged. As you conclude, the crux of the matter lies especially in the measurement of things. But, one also must acknowledge this is a higly subjective matter, and what is unimportant for one person, could be higly intrusive for another. You focus a bit on the Bill of Rights, but I rather think one should approach it as a matter of principle: that *any* right that we had before, should not be waived because of the mere possibility of added security, unless one can prove there is no more efficient means to do so.
In the case of the locked cabin for the pilots, this is rather obvious: terrorists can't easily gain control of the airplane anymore, and the intrusion on other people is next to non-existant: as a passenger, you didn't have the right to go in to the cockpit anyway. So, nothing really changes, and the measure is clearly of use.
The more one deviate from this principle, the more one should be wary of it. A lot of measures taken, for instance, are complete bullocks, and increasingly intrude on the rights on passengers (and I don't mean only legal rights; to get on your plane fast and without hassle is a right too, IMHO). The danger here lies in the extrapolation of ones' personal feelings, to a general one: because I'm not bothered much buy it, it's ok.... but that really doesn't fly. Maybe you're hardly ever picked out, because you're a white caucasian, and not an arab-looking guy, or because you're a calm type, not a someone with fly-anxiety, etc.
This reasoning is often used by the populace here too; nobody really cares that the police can stop you and ask you for your ID, whenever they feel like it...but that's because it hardly ever happens to us. The immigrants (actualy, just foreign-looking), however, are stopped and checked every goddamn time, and I can understand their frustration, and I think they have a point. Well, this as an aside, just to show that what seems totally reasonable for someone, can not be so for another person or group.
The other matter is, that all those futile measures create a false sense, an illusion, of safety and security..which actually makes things worse. I don't see why anyone should accept *any* reducement of rights, legal or otherwise, when the measures are completly nonsenscal (and there are enough of those).
And thirdly, time and finances are limited, like always; so for every outright stupid, but also just meager measure taken, it means there is less for projects that would actually make a considerable difference.
I guess we're in agreement on a lots of things, only maybe we differ what basic principle should be taken. For instance, I do *not* agree that "we either need to accept that there's a need for *some* security efforts, or we need to give up on the idea of public air transport entirely." - if those security efforts reduce the rights and liberties we had before. At least, as principle, meaning, one shouldn't just accept it 'like that'. For those measures that don't put extra limitations on people: go ahead - for those that do, one should ask the questions I raised earlier: is it truely helpful, is there no other way of achieving it, etc. Considerations often discarded by the people ordering and implementing these measures, and even by a lot of ordinary people themselves, who seem all to easy in accepting these limitations - untill, perhaps, one day they will wake up and realise they live in a police-state. And then they'll wonder: "How did it come to this? I
"I didn't respond to your post because you're playing a rhetorical game, and not making an actual argument. You keep invoking Gitmo as an example of what people might do using my argument as justification."
It was not meant to be rethorical, though I can see how you could come to such a conclusion, if you attribute me the wrong premise I would be defending. I did not invoke Gitmo for the reasons you claim, simply because the claim is doubtable on itself. You speak about people using your reasoning as a justification, but of course, this is completely subjective; those people can be of the opinion that you are using 'theirs', only you solely want to remain consistent as long as it suits your viewpoint (- just as the more consistent reasoning suits theirs). I do not think all soldiers (or others, including politicians) there, at Gitmo, consider it to be an excuse, for instance. I'm rather sure most of them *really* consider what they are doing there, to be justified and for a good cause.
What is that cause? Well, safety and security for the USA. So, it's not like 'they' stole 'your' argument, rather you both use the same - and THAT was which I was pointing out. The only difference is, they take it some levels further than you are comfortable with. But, objectively, one can wonder whether this is making the reasioning itself unvalid.
So, you see, I'm actually agreeing with you: your argumentation is still valid, whether someone tortures people for it or not. The only difference being, that you deny they are using the same argumentation (you see it as 'stolen' and 'tainted'), while objectively, one can only conclude they are following that reasoning rather consistently, and your problem stems from your personal moral discomfort with it, not with the reasoning itself. And *that* was my point. Only, *I* disagree with the premise it starts with, namely that for the notion of security, someone has to accept their rights are being reduced and trampled on.
"More clearly: You're saying that, because *some* people would use my argument to justify their actions that it is a bad argument."
No, I don't. On the contrary, provided one starts with the premise, the argumentation is valid, and the reasoning is sound and logical. However, it remains sound and logical in Gitmo, where, ultimately, the same reasoning is only being consistently applied.
It's not the argumentation I was disputing, but the premise it was based upon.
"The Bush cabal makes the argument that they're spreading freedom, too. Is "freedom" now tainted because some criminals have decided to hide behind it in order to make their crimes more palatable?"
If people accept that sort of freedom as justified, then, yes, it is tainted. (Much as if people accepted that ones' rights needs to be trampled upon to be more safe and secure). The tainting, therefor, lies not in the reasoning (when applied consistently), but in the premise one starts with. You, however, rather claim that your reasoning is valid, unless it is used by other people for things you personally (and arbitrarily) feel uncomfortable with. Well, if they actually follow the same reasoning, why would your personal morals make it invalid? And if it did, why wouldn't another persons' moral values make *your* less-consistent reasoning unvalid?
The answer to that is, IMHO, that it's not the reasoning that has sway over moral or ethical issues (a reasoning can only be consistent or not), it's the premise you start with, that is the seeding ground for such notions and objections. Thus, if you discover that a consistent reasoning leads you into moral problems, it is not the reasonings fault, but the premise you start with.
"You earlier made the argument that removing some laws might lead to better behavior. There are some people who've murdered in the name of removing laws - does that now mean that your argument is invalid because some loon hijacked it?"
Which, I repeat, wasn't my premise. Whether someone murdered for it or not does not enter the
I've responded to this, but I was at another puter, so maybe you didn't see it, so I'll repeat:
"That's wonderful for you, but unfortunately, we do actually have problems that arise from underage drinking here. Hell, we have problems with of age drinking here."
"Do I think it will solve the problem? Hell no. But until we can figure out how to solve the underlying issues, it's better than nothing."
Which was my point; it *doesn't* actually help (just as in the case of airports/planes, a lot of 'security measures' don't help). But in any case, you are confusing two things: driving under influence, and underage drinking. We most certainly have pretty stringent laws for the former, but not for the latter. The difference being (as laws should be) that in the former you directly endanger others (and driving under influence is not limited to the youth, and maybe even less so, because young teens aren't even allowed to drive in the first place;-), while in the latter you don't (not on itself, that is).
Ofcourse, drunken youth (or anyone else for that matter) *may* cause trouble, but that's just what I was saying: in countries where they have a more tolerant attitude towards it, 'binch drinking' and youth creating amok under influence happens a lot *less* then in those countries where they have a pretty repressive 'no-under-age-booze' attitude. (Take the example of the UK, for instance, which adapted it's laws in this regard). Some countries realise this mistake (like the UK recently), some don't. Which is why I thought your analogy was ill chosen, because it demonstrated just the point I was making, that some laws or rules (like the booze-thing or like giving a false sense of security) is actually making things worse then they are making things better - and yet, people are happy to do so, convinced it really is helping.
In fact, most of the time, the persons themselves are convinced it's for a good purpose ('safety' or 'avoiding deaths', etc.), and so don't even question the necessity of the law which hollows out their rights, or the rights of others. Is it really necessary to hassle people on the airport? Does it augment safety? Most people being sheep, they just echo what the governement tells them: yes. You might think this is a bit of an elitist attitude, and it is - but it also has truth in it. Take your own example of booze/drinking age: did you ever wonder if it wouldn't be better to lower the drinking age, or to get less restrictive in these matters? Did you ever looked at how other countries are doing in this respect, which have a different attitude (and laws)? Do they have more alcoholics, trouble with youth under influence, etc., or less?
I don't think you did, convinced as you are that your current laws, mentality and viepoint on this is the 'right' way to go. (You could prove me wrong, of course;-)
I understand you're not thrilled with the lie-detector hing, but your emotional viewpoint of "if it's for (claimed) safety/saving from deaths/etc., it's ok" doesn't really fly with me. You may add "if I'm not much bothered by it", but that doesn't make it any better, it only makes it less consistent and more arbitrary. First one has to know if it *actually* helps - which, as the case for booze demonstrates, is often genuinly seen wrong - and even if it does, it's the question if the loss of any rights one normally possesses is worth the *possibility* of reducing deaths/etc. Because, let's face it, when you are talking about possibilities, one can argue whatever one wants.
Gitmo can seem over the top for me, and maybe even for you, but not everyone (including your leaders) are of that opinion, apparently. And they are following exactly the same reasoning: if there is a *possibility* of avoiding another attack with torturing people, then let's do it.
If you take that premise, they stay in exactly the same logic and reasoning as you have used. Only you think they are not reasonable (anymore), while they think they *are* (and that you're not, probably).
"There *are* reasonable precautions that can be taken, that *don't* require rounding up all the usual suspects Inquisition style."
Yes, but the 'lie-detector' isn't one of them. A reasonable precaution that actually helps security in a real way, is the one where the cabin door is closed and shut during the flight, so no-one can get to the pilots.
As for your example with booze: actually, around here people have a far more relaxed attitude towards that. We don't require people to be 21 before they can buy it, and we don't have shopkeepers asking for your ID neither, even if you're below 18. And yet, we don't have all the preceived problems you seem to think it would cause.
Just to show you that, while you may be thinking it is needed and a good thing to do, it doesn't mean that really is the case, nor that it helps anything.
"I'm willing to trade 10-15 minutes of my time every time I fly (and that's pretty damn often) if it means that thousands of people might not die needlessly."
You forgot to invoke the following quote:
"And would someone PLEASE think of the children!"
That always does it, to get anything insane through as law or rule. Your argument is based on emotional suspicious grounds and as a false dilemma, because you are setting '(avoiding) thousands of deaths' against '20 minutes waiting' - well, duh. If you take that as juxtaposition, then even an hour or a day of your time - or people being put in jail for years without any legal representation - might be worth 'saving thousands of deaths'. Which is exactly what the USA is doing, in GIZMO. Aparently there too, you have a lot of americans thinking it's worth it, to possible prevent 'thousands of deaths'. Bah. I spit on such brain-dead reasonings and false argumentation.
Fact is, whether you think it's no big deal or not, other people might be greately annoyed if they always get harrashed and questionned, merely because they have a bit of flight-anxiety (and thus are nervous enough to set the 'lie-detector' off). And for what, ultimately? Not for real added security, but for *the appearance* of security - which might actually make things less secure.
1)forbid or severly limit the financial ties between (or 'legal sponsoring' of) the corporations and politicians/parties 2)get rid of the two-party system 3)put effort in creating an independend media
Alas...the self-serving nature of corporations and politicians alike means this is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
As other posters have asked; if you have a problem with it, and you say the question about morality/law is irrelevant, then what problem could you have with it? Certainly not a moral one, because that would be irrelevant, dixit yourself.
Apart from this obvious contradictio in terminis, even when one would follow you in this reasoning, then breaking the law poses a problem (presumably of moral origin), because it breaks the law *regardless* of the morality of that law. This is of course a silly notion, because that would imply that 'breaking' unmoral laws would be unmoral (or at least would pose a moral problem). Well, it is not: if you don't subscribe to unmoral laws, you are being ethical/moral, and thus, where is the problem (in a moral sense)?
If you would follow your reasoning consistently, then the nazi laws (yeah, I know, I invoke the nazi's;-) which dehumanised the jewish people should be obeyed, because 'they are law'. Would you claim, then, that you would have 'a problem' saving human lives, by breaking those unhuman and unjust laws?
Well, heck, I would have a problem *not* breaking them, or supporting people in breaking them. I fail to see how you can have a problem with that, *unless* you deem the law to be just and moral. Yes, you are right; that is subjective. But the fact that you claim it gives you problems supporting the breaking of unmoral laws, says more about your own level of morality, IMHO.
"It's a simple fact that the GPL was designed to force publication of modified code, which is an artificial limitation on the personal freedom of authors in exchange for public accessibility."
Yeah, but I think the point of the other poster was that it is actually a restriction of the copyright itself (as a system), not that of the GPL. The rationale for this reasoning is that, if there were NO copyright-protections whatsoever (for instance, if *everything* ever written automatically became public property), there would be no need for the GPL.
In essence, the GPL puts a restriction on a restriction (namely that of classical copyrights), which - with reason - could be seen as being more free. Because, if there was no restriction on that already-globally-in-place restriction, the freedom to use it would be less. I agree that, at first view, one could see that as an additional restriction, but the fact is, if one does not restrict the (copyright)restrictions, you become more restricted, not less.
Anyway, I'm sure the illegal downloading of music would go down considerably if it was licenced under the same principles of the GPL (for instance, that it can be used and distributed freely;-).
The difference in perception is this: take a hypothetical situation where someone is stealing something from a shop. That is theft, yes, and illegal, and should be dealt with. In principle, it would ALL be considered theft, regardles of the actual material that was stolen, and the law often sees it that way. On a humane/moral level, however, I (and I imagine many people) would not regard the theft of a bread by a kid so he doesn't have to starve to death as being of the same 'wrongfulness' as a rich dude stealing a TV. In fact, I would have no problem with it, in that circumstance. That's not the law, granted, that's my own moral judgement on the matter.
One can lament this or not, but just as in your example of (breaking the) copy-licencing by the *IAA, which tries to limit ones' freedom (of use), or one of the GPL, which tries to safeguard your freedom, people do not morally measure this in the same way. This may seem inconsistent if you only take the law as the absolute and sole measurement (just as in the case of the theft), and not your own individual morals.
I, however, am rather of the opinion that the morality of what is right and wrong, and what the laws say, often contradicts eachother, and that in that case, your individual morality and ethics is more important then whatever law has been passed. My moral judgement has no problems if someone 'steals' a bread for survival, nor does it have any problems when someone is downloading and copying music for non-commercial use.
In general, I would claim the answer to your question about why people regard one thing as ok, and another thing not, is because people think it's ok to act (even if that action is that of a rebel, dissident or illegal) for more freedom, while they think it sucks when freedom is being limited. And thus, while in the two instances, it's both about licenses, one is limiting your freedom in use and distribution, and the other tries to safeguard that freedom; thus, infringement on the one is deemed not very objectionable (in a personal moral), while the other is.
You've made a good point: the (ultra) left as well as the right of the populace protest against the EU, but for totally (and diametrically oposed) reasons. So it's not easy to know how to go further, if further means 'better', because the ideas for what constitutes 'better' are not the same.
Yet, I think that both sides would rather prefer a directly elected person or group of persons which draw up laws for millions of EU-citizens but without ever having to give any sort of responsability to those same citizens, then a bunch of non-elected and undemocratic bureaucrats, who's main purpose in life is pushing through things *they* want to get through, regardless of what the people themselves want.
But then again, it's all too known that they don't represent the people.
The reason why this particular issue of the EU is not dealt with, is NOT because there is so much difference of opinion about it with the populace - most of them would prefer something chosen democratic, then something that is appointed - but because the politicians in power don't want to lose their power.
"But it does constitute fucking with us, or at least challenging our power."
So, basically, when a country disagrees with the USA, it is challenging your power, and you (at least the administration) feels it's then allowed to use force?
"Hell, same thing with beer. 97% of the beer consumed in the US is cheap, mass produced, bland Bud, Miller, and Coors. Most people just don't appreciate quality beer or music. But they pay for it anyway. And that is where the big corps get their profits."
All too true.
Well, maybe except for Belgians and their Belgian Beer, perhaps...
No it doesn't. It *seems* to make sense, when you take the anglo-saxon neo-liberal capitalistic viewpoint as the only premise possible.
What you say only makes sense, if you accept that premise. But, in the exact same sense, it makes 'perfect sense' for companies to use child labour: they are cheaper and easier to control then adults. Thus, the profitmargin augments, thus the stockholders are happy because profit is larger, which is the point in a captilatic worldview.
You see? Using that premise, it makes perfectly sense to use childlabour. But I don't see any votes going up in the West to (re)introduce childlabour, do you? So, maybe, just maybe, the premise you start is all wrong, and it *does not* make sense to make genetic discrimination, because we not only live in a market-driven society, but also a social one.
"You have the right to "genetic privacy" as much as you have the right of privacy of your criminal record; but when you go to be insured or employed, you sign documents waiving that right because otherwise the insurers or employers won't even look at you, and for good reason."
1)you equate having a criminal record with genetics; this analogy is false. 2)companies are hold to the same laws as individual citizens, and it are those citizens that vote for the people who make the laws - NOT the corporations (at least, in principle, I know corporatism has gone a long way in corrupting this, especially in the USA). 3)since companies are subject to those laws, they can put in their policies and contracts whatever they want; the provisions which are illegal will remain illegal and unenforcable (at least in Europe). 4)If you would move to another state, that state too should make similar laws. At the end, a federal law could make it valid upon ALL states. 5)One should make it a viable option to sue every company which discriminates with huge fines, this, in the same sort of skewed anglo-saxon neo-capitalistic reasoning, would lead to high costs and other unwelcome results, and thus, it would become less of an incentive to go for genetic screening.
I'm getting sick and tired of this sort of warped, single-minded view of how the world should work according to capitalistic principles. The market as darwinian system...yeah, has been claimed already in the 19th century. It's all a bunch of crap, because we, as humans, do not only consider market forces as the only driving force of our existence. I mean, what, with this sort of reasoning, it makes perfect sense for companies to use childlabour: they are way cheaper and more easy to control then adults. From 'the perspective of the companies' thus, it makes perfect sense to be for child-labour. So, why don't we see votes for (re)introducing childlabour?
Why...could it be that the interests and profits of corporations isn't *really* our primary concern?
"Booting out unfree nations would still leave plenty of sworn enemies of US policy (if not the US itself) such as France and Germany."
Hmm..we might have a different interpretations about 'sworn enemies'.;-) Oficially, even the USA only sees the axis of evil-countries as THE sworn enemies. France is regarded as an annoyance, just as the USA is to Europe (and, granted, a bit more the an annoyance now, though a lot less then that during the clinton-administration).
"The negotiations will doubtless be long, fractious and could lead to war."
It would be impossible to do, in any pragmatic sense. You seem to fail to realise that (just as with democracy in general) the system isn't chosen because it is so perfect, but because every other concept is even worse. It is *impossible* to be fair in arguing which countries should be allowed and which not, when yet other countries have to vote on their 'basic western values'. For starters, not all countries are western, so why should they follow western values? Who will decide on those values, and who will decide if, and to what level they are not met?
The USA, for instance, has a long history of holding the hand above (and even simply support or get in power) dictatorial regimes. And they are not alone in it (though the most obvious example, in modern times). Do you really imagine the USA (or any other country) which supports such regimes, because they do their bidding, will actually vote against these puppet-states they themselves created? If they are hypocrite enough to put them in power in the first place, do you have any confidence in their willingness to kick them out and condemn them?
Have you any doubt about the disastrious effects when one would be consistent in such a 'fair' voting? First of all, you would have to forbid those countries on themselves to vote, because otherwise, obviously, they'll vote so they are included in the UN. But for that to happen, who will vote it? It's a chicken-and-eg problem. Secondly, in *any* p^ramatic sense, this is unfeasable, even if one would try it. For instance, Israel, while being a 'democracy' has been condemned numerous times for serious human-rights violations, making it clear being a 'democracy' does not mean one isn't as 'bad' as a dictatorship (I would claim a 'democratic' country where a minority is so strongly suppressed and occupied, with a 'dictatorship of the majority' could be worse then a truelly enlightened dictatorship, for instance)...Also, almost all the major oil-states would have nothing to say...china, a country with 1 billion people, would have no vote, countries, even possessing nuclear weapons, would be denied their say in the UN...does all that seem like a good recipe for a 'new' UN?
It would simply be impossible to form a 'clique' of free states in any objective way, and, even if they did, they wouldn't be representing the world, only some extended 'G-8' type of organisation. Broke as it may be, the current UN at least has more to offer then an arbitrarily chosen group of 'really democratic/free' countries. If one would actually try what you suggest, the world would certainly NOT become a safer place.
""Thus, it was for the UN to decide, not for the US"
Really? Show me where it says that."
What you mean? Are you claiming that all your above quotes where it says 'decides," it is meant that 'the usa decides'? That seems ludicrous: those resolutions and all the paragraphs you quote were made by the UN, and the 'decides' means 'we' (= the UN) decides.
And if it's the UN that decides, it's not possible to claim it says it is 'the usa' that decides, nor that the UN meant or even implied it was for the USA to decide.
Slashdot Mirror
"Ceballos had a difference of opinion with his superiors about how to handle a case (he was a deputy district attorney for L.A. County). I don't see how this makes him a whistleblower. He wasn't revealing corruption. He disagreed with his boss(es) about the robustness of a search warrant affidavit. I imagine that happens all the time. I infer that he didn't handle this disagreement in a way that endeared him to his boss. His boss responded by transfering him, and denying him a promotion. These sound like reasoanble actions for a boss to take if he doesn't see eye-to-eye with an employee."
errmmm...If what he said was actually untrue, his boss could have sued him for slander.
So, let's say my boss is working for the government and commits fraud and I talk about it (even in a work related context). If my boss (or you) calls that a 'difference of opinion on how to spend public money' you would not see it as whistleblowing, because the wrongdoer refrases his fraud? (Because, note that no judge ever commented on the truthfulness of what the employee said). One may assume it would not be 'endearing' to my boss neither, in whatever way I put it. And thus, it is a reasonable action for him to transfer me and deny me a promotion?
It seems we have a difference of opinion what constitutes 'reasonable'. It's only reasonable for a person trying to cover his tracks, take revenge, or is simply amoral.
it's called irony.
The parent poster was clearly being ironic, and I fail to see how people can miss that (unless you were being double ironic, but I somehow doubt that). Granted, some people recognise this sort of humor quicker than others, but at the time he gave the link to an *US ID* article, the irony should have been obvious to everybody (barring some bible-belt twats).
"Seriously, though, you're saying that the good of the individual should be sacrificed for the good of the majority."
He said no such thing.
The issue here was not: "it's worth killing 3000 people in the twin towers to keep our civil liberties", it is rather: "it's worth keeping our civil liberties, even after the killing of 3000 people".
I'm pretty sure we made a bilateral agreement with the Romulans stipulating we wouldn't create such devices!
The name of that (inter)stellar agreement escapes me for the moment, but I'm sure some nerd here will point out the correct name and paragraph!!
"Before P2P a mix tape was the RI's biggest realistic threat, a threat buffered by the fact that there's a tariff on analog cassette tapes."
Ermm...there is a tariff on digital carriers too, you know. At least in europe.
The point I was trying to point out is, that one can hold the opinion it's not a matter of technology, nor of threat to the RIAA&co, but of the use that a person makes of it. One can easily say 'it used to be the only threat' etc., but lets not forget that the *IAA has ALWAYS fulminated against technologies they thought of as a threat - and that includes analoge systems, like VHS. Obviously, if they had succeeded in manipulating the law enough, we wouldn't be where we are today, with the consumer-rights we have. So, the treath (at least the perceived one) for them was augmented because copies were made possible. The same goes for when the radio and TV was created and mass-produced: they argued it was a huge threat too.
Now, history repeats itself, and a new technology has been born, and the *IAA are back at it again: claiming they'll go broke and that the threat is huge, etc. However, seen the reports that they actually didn't do that badly, and it's not clear if P2P are to blame (many d/l music they wouldn't buy otherwise anyway), and people still buy stuff if they perceive an added value in it, one can ponder whether these claims are true.
Anyway, as one can see in ANY of these cases, where new technology popped up, and the threat and damage was claimed to be huge, courts often decided in the interest of the new technology and consumer-rights, and did NOT accept the reasonings given by the *IAAs. Courts have decided on the legality of the use of technology; is it used commercially or not, etc? NOT about the technology itself, since, as I said, that would be foolish. Otherwise, each time a new technology will be created (and in our modern times, this happens frequently) one can't claim an action that was before completely legal, now suddenly becomes illegal.
So, I understand your claim about there being a difference, but as I said; one can reasonably be of the opinion that that doesn't matter all that much. There was much difference between buying a vinyl record, and the mass sending of the same music through the ether too. Should one have claimed radio should be forbidden?
No, I think the way it was handled made sense: they allowed it, and searched for mechanisms to compensate the artists (though it's often NOT the artists that get the gain).
And so, being pragmatic, should one forbid P2P? No, one should construct a mechanism in which the artists get compensated, and that's exactly what france tries to do. Most european countries already have taxes on digital cariers too, so the 'threat' already gets buffered in that respect. For pure online d/l (P2P) they now buffer the threat with asking a flat fee-tax.
All this seems reasonable and more in line with the history of new technologies vs. the *IAAs, then just to ouright forbid it, or making it illegal (even criminal, some voices lobby). This line of reasoning is self-defeating, however...I mean, we all know a large part of the population has d/l something that was copyrighted sometime in his life - now that we live in the information age, this hardly can be avoided. Is outlawing the technology, criminalising the users, fining (often huge) them, or throwing them in jail, and that for a considerable part of the populace, the answer?
Me thinks not, just as it wasn't for when a considerable part of the populace started using VHS-tapes to record stuff.
Instead, one should search for a way to uphold consumer-rights, to allow the use of P2P (which can't be stopped anyway), and to envisage a way of compensating the artists, just as they have always done in the past. It is refreshing to see France take a more rational approach than to fulminate against the technology and its users.
"Calling the current state of P2P apps "sharing" is still one of the most intelligence insulting stances I think a person could argue from."
Only beaten by the insult of calling it 'theft', which the RIAA often uses in its rethoric.
In any case, I fail to see the logic in your arguments; you consistently use 'bit for bit', as if the manner in which the copy is taken is detrimental. This, however, is an arbitrary opinion, not an inherent valid argument. As others, including courts, have argumented that it's not the technology used that matters, but the way the tool is used (for instance, for commercial gains or not). This shows, that your 'bit for bit' defence can reasonably be considered irrelevant.
Taken that fact and one doesn't subscribe to your premise, the copying of digital data is not different (in regard to it's use) then that of copying pages out of books, or copying films on VHS, etc. The courts in france came to same conclusion, and it's a logical one...otherwise, everytime the technology changes one could argue it's suddenly illegal to do things that were perfectly legal before.
"Was it a great example? Hardly, and I can accept that. In the 30 seconds or so I took to type out my reply, I didn't bother getting into hundreds of details and side issues all around - all the nuances of the argument. I didn't feel that in this context it was important."
;-)
An untenable notion, when the informal medium is slashdot!
"Anyway - that is a much more detailed statement of my views and opinions on this stuff, complete with something of a useful way to measure what is not enough and what is too much."
Indeed, it is. Much obliged. As you conclude, the crux of the matter lies especially in the measurement of things. But, one also must acknowledge this is a higly subjective matter, and what is unimportant for one person, could be higly intrusive for another. You focus a bit on the Bill of Rights, but I rather think one should approach it as a matter of principle: that *any* right that we had before, should not be waived because of the mere possibility of added security, unless one can prove there is no more efficient means to do so.
In the case of the locked cabin for the pilots, this is rather obvious: terrorists can't easily gain control of the airplane anymore, and the intrusion on other people is next to non-existant: as a passenger, you didn't have the right to go in to the cockpit anyway. So, nothing really changes, and the measure is clearly of use.
The more one deviate from this principle, the more one should be wary of it. A lot of measures taken, for instance, are complete bullocks, and increasingly intrude on the rights on passengers (and I don't mean only legal rights; to get on your plane fast and without hassle is a right too, IMHO). The danger here lies in the extrapolation of ones' personal feelings, to a general one: because I'm not bothered much buy it, it's ok.... but that really doesn't fly. Maybe you're hardly ever picked out, because you're a white caucasian, and not an arab-looking guy, or because you're a calm type, not a someone with fly-anxiety, etc.
This reasoning is often used by the populace here too; nobody really cares that the police can stop you and ask you for your ID, whenever they feel like it...but that's because it hardly ever happens to us. The immigrants (actualy, just foreign-looking), however, are stopped and checked every goddamn time, and I can understand their frustration, and I think they have a point. Well, this as an aside, just to show that what seems totally reasonable for someone, can not be so for another person or group.
The other matter is, that all those futile measures create a false sense, an illusion, of safety and security..which actually makes things worse. I don't see why anyone should accept *any* reducement of rights, legal or otherwise, when the measures are completly nonsenscal (and there are enough of those).
And thirdly, time and finances are limited, like always; so for every outright stupid, but also just meager measure taken, it means there is less for projects that would actually make a considerable difference.
I guess we're in agreement on a lots of things, only maybe we differ what basic principle should be taken. For instance, I do *not* agree that "we either need to accept that there's a need for *some* security efforts, or we need to give up on the idea of public air transport entirely." - if those security efforts reduce the rights and liberties we had before. At least, as principle, meaning, one shouldn't just accept it 'like that'. For those measures that don't put extra limitations on people: go ahead - for those that do, one should ask the questions I raised earlier: is it truely helpful, is there no other way of achieving it, etc. Considerations often discarded by the people ordering and implementing these measures, and even by a lot of ordinary people themselves, who seem all to easy in accepting these limitations - untill, perhaps, one day they will wake up and realise they live in a police-state. And then they'll wonder: "How did it come to this? I
"I didn't respond to your post because you're playing a rhetorical game, and not making an actual argument. You keep invoking Gitmo as an example of what people might do using my argument as justification."
It was not meant to be rethorical, though I can see how you could come to such a conclusion, if you attribute me the wrong premise I would be defending. I did not invoke Gitmo for the reasons you claim, simply because the claim is doubtable on itself. You speak about people using your reasoning as a justification, but of course, this is completely subjective; those people can be of the opinion that you are using 'theirs', only you solely want to remain consistent as long as it suits your viewpoint (- just as the more consistent reasoning suits theirs). I do not think all soldiers (or others, including politicians) there, at Gitmo, consider it to be an excuse, for instance. I'm rather sure most of them *really* consider what they are doing there, to be justified and for a good cause.
What is that cause? Well, safety and security for the USA. So, it's not like 'they' stole 'your' argument, rather you both use the same - and THAT was which I was pointing out. The only difference is, they take it some levels further than you are comfortable with. But, objectively, one can wonder whether this is making the reasioning itself unvalid.
So, you see, I'm actually agreeing with you: your argumentation is still valid, whether someone tortures people for it or not. The only difference being, that you deny they are using the same argumentation (you see it as 'stolen' and 'tainted'), while objectively, one can only conclude they are following that reasoning rather consistently, and your problem stems from your personal moral discomfort with it, not with the reasoning itself. And *that* was my point. Only, *I* disagree with the premise it starts with, namely that for the notion of security, someone has to accept their rights are being reduced and trampled on.
"More clearly: You're saying that, because *some* people would use my argument to justify their actions that it is a bad argument."
No, I don't. On the contrary, provided one starts with the premise, the argumentation is valid, and the reasoning is sound and logical. However, it remains sound and logical in Gitmo, where, ultimately, the same reasoning is only being consistently applied.
It's not the argumentation I was disputing, but the premise it was based upon.
"The Bush cabal makes the argument that they're spreading freedom, too. Is "freedom" now tainted because some criminals have decided to hide behind it in order to make their crimes more palatable?"
If people accept that sort of freedom as justified, then, yes, it is tainted. (Much as if people accepted that ones' rights needs to be trampled upon to be more safe and secure). The tainting, therefor, lies not in the reasoning (when applied consistently), but in the premise one starts with. You, however, rather claim that your reasoning is valid, unless it is used by other people for things you personally (and arbitrarily) feel uncomfortable with. Well, if they actually follow the same reasoning, why would your personal morals make it invalid? And if it did, why wouldn't another persons' moral values make *your* less-consistent reasoning unvalid?
The answer to that is, IMHO, that it's not the reasoning that has sway over moral or ethical issues (a reasoning can only be consistent or not), it's the premise you start with, that is the seeding ground for such notions and objections. Thus, if you discover that a consistent reasoning leads you into moral problems, it is not the reasonings fault, but the premise you start with.
"You earlier made the argument that removing some laws might lead to better behavior. There are some people who've murdered in the name of removing laws - does that now mean that your argument is invalid because some loon hijacked it?"
Which, I repeat, wasn't my premise. Whether someone murdered for it or not does not enter the
I've responded to this, but I was at another puter, so maybe you didn't see it, so I'll repeat:
;-), while in the latter you don't (not on itself, that is).
;-)
"That's wonderful for you, but unfortunately, we do actually have problems that arise from underage drinking here. Hell, we have problems with of age drinking here."
"Do I think it will solve the problem? Hell no. But until we can figure out how to solve the underlying issues, it's better than nothing."
Which was my point; it *doesn't* actually help (just as in the case of airports/planes, a lot of 'security measures' don't help). But in any case, you are confusing two things: driving under influence, and underage drinking. We most certainly have pretty stringent laws for the former, but not for the latter. The difference being (as laws should be) that in the former you directly endanger others (and driving under influence is not limited to the youth, and maybe even less so, because young teens aren't even allowed to drive in the first place
Ofcourse, drunken youth (or anyone else for that matter) *may* cause trouble, but that's just what I was saying: in countries where they have a more tolerant attitude towards it, 'binch drinking' and youth creating amok under influence happens a lot *less* then in those countries where they have a pretty repressive 'no-under-age-booze' attitude. (Take the example of the UK, for instance, which adapted it's laws in this regard). Some countries realise this mistake (like the UK recently), some don't. Which is why I thought your analogy was ill chosen, because it demonstrated just the point I was making, that some laws or rules (like the booze-thing or like giving a false sense of security) is actually making things worse then they are making things better - and yet, people are happy to do so, convinced it really is helping.
In fact, most of the time, the persons themselves are convinced it's for a good purpose ('safety' or 'avoiding deaths', etc.), and so don't even question the necessity of the law which hollows out their rights, or the rights of others. Is it really necessary to hassle people on the airport? Does it augment safety? Most people being sheep, they just echo what the governement tells them: yes. You might think this is a bit of an elitist attitude, and it is - but it also has truth in it. Take your own example of booze/drinking age: did you ever wonder if it wouldn't be better to lower the drinking age, or to get less restrictive in these matters? Did you ever looked at how other countries are doing in this respect, which have a different attitude (and laws)? Do they have more alcoholics, trouble with youth under influence, etc., or less?
I don't think you did, convinced as you are that your current laws, mentality and viepoint on this is the 'right' way to go. (You could prove me wrong, of course
I understand you're not thrilled with the lie-detector hing, but your emotional viewpoint of "if it's for (claimed) safety/saving from deaths/etc., it's ok" doesn't really fly with me. You may add "if I'm not much bothered by it", but that doesn't make it any better, it only makes it less consistent and more arbitrary. First one has to know if it *actually* helps - which, as the case for booze demonstrates, is often genuinly seen wrong - and even if it does, it's the question if the loss of any rights one normally possesses is worth the *possibility* of reducing deaths/etc. Because, let's face it, when you are talking about possibilities, one can argue whatever one wants.
Gitmo can seem over the top for me, and maybe even for you, but not everyone (including your leaders) are of that opinion, apparently. And they are following exactly the same reasoning: if there is a *possibility* of avoiding another attack with torturing people, then let's do it.
If you take that premise, they stay in exactly the same logic and reasoning as you have used. Only you think they are not reasonable (anymore), while they think they *are* (and that you're not, probably).
I would rather argue the premise itself is wrong.
"There *are* reasonable precautions that can be taken, that *don't* require rounding up all the usual suspects Inquisition style."
Yes, but the 'lie-detector' isn't one of them. A reasonable precaution that actually helps security in a real way, is the one where the cabin door is closed and shut during the flight, so no-one can get to the pilots.
As for your example with booze: actually, around here people have a far more relaxed attitude towards that. We don't require people to be 21 before they can buy it, and we don't have shopkeepers asking for your ID neither, even if you're below 18. And yet, we don't have all the preceived problems you seem to think it would cause.
Just to show you that, while you may be thinking it is needed and a good thing to do, it doesn't mean that really is the case, nor that it helps anything.
Hopefully, the irony will not be completely lost on him.
"I'm willing to trade 10-15 minutes of my time every time I fly (and that's pretty damn often) if it means that thousands of people might not die needlessly."
You forgot to invoke the following quote:
"And would someone PLEASE think of the children!"
That always does it, to get anything insane through as law or rule. Your argument is based on emotional suspicious grounds and as a false dilemma, because you are setting '(avoiding) thousands of deaths' against '20 minutes waiting' - well, duh. If you take that as juxtaposition, then even an hour or a day of your time - or people being put in jail for years without any legal representation - might be worth 'saving thousands of deaths'. Which is exactly what the USA is doing, in GIZMO. Aparently there too, you have a lot of americans thinking it's worth it, to possible prevent 'thousands of deaths'. Bah. I spit on such brain-dead reasonings and false argumentation.
Fact is, whether you think it's no big deal or not, other people might be greately annoyed if they always get harrashed and questionned, merely because they have a bit of flight-anxiety (and thus are nervous enough to set the 'lie-detector' off). And for what, ultimately? Not for real added security, but for *the appearance* of security - which might actually make things less secure.
"you look at the government funded spacecraft, they are all going after maximum single launch payload."
Actually, no. They are developing the Vega too, for instance.
A very well written en correct analysis, sir.
Thus, what the USA should do is:
1)forbid or severly limit the financial ties between (or 'legal sponsoring' of) the corporations and politicians/parties
2)get rid of the two-party system
3)put effort in creating an independend media
Alas...the self-serving nature of corporations and politicians alike means this is unlikely to happen anytime soon.
Maybe "progress" means higher profit and control? This is still hotly debated by corporate lawyers.
As other posters have asked; if you have a problem with it, and you say the question about morality/law is irrelevant, then what problem could you have with it? Certainly not a moral one, because that would be irrelevant, dixit yourself.
;-) which dehumanised the jewish people should be obeyed, because 'they are law'. Would you claim, then, that you would have 'a problem' saving human lives, by breaking those unhuman and unjust laws?
Apart from this obvious contradictio in terminis, even when one would follow you in this reasoning, then breaking the law poses a problem (presumably of moral origin), because it breaks the law *regardless* of the morality of that law. This is of course a silly notion, because that would imply that 'breaking' unmoral laws would be unmoral (or at least would pose a moral problem). Well, it is not: if you don't subscribe to unmoral laws, you are being ethical/moral, and thus, where is the problem (in a moral sense)?
If you would follow your reasoning consistently, then the nazi laws (yeah, I know, I invoke the nazi's
Well, heck, I would have a problem *not* breaking them, or supporting people in breaking them. I fail to see how you can have a problem with that, *unless* you deem the law to be just and moral. Yes, you are right; that is subjective. But the fact that you claim it gives you problems supporting the breaking of unmoral laws, says more about your own level of morality, IMHO.
"It's a simple fact that the GPL was designed to force publication of modified code, which is an artificial limitation on the personal freedom of authors in exchange for public accessibility."
Yeah, but I think the point of the other poster was that it is actually a restriction of the copyright itself (as a system), not that of the GPL. The rationale for this reasoning is that, if there were NO copyright-protections whatsoever (for instance, if *everything* ever written automatically became public property), there would be no need for the GPL.
In essence, the GPL puts a restriction on a restriction (namely that of classical copyrights), which - with reason - could be seen as being more free. Because, if there was no restriction on that already-globally-in-place restriction, the freedom to use it would be less. I agree that, at first view, one could see that as an additional restriction, but the fact is, if one does not restrict the (copyright)restrictions, you become more restricted, not less.
"I thought information wanted to be free."
;-)
;-).
Or it wants to be speech AND beer.
Anyway, I'm sure the illegal downloading of music would go down considerably if it was licenced under the same principles of the GPL (for instance, that it can be used and distributed freely
The difference in perception is this: take a hypothetical situation where someone is stealing something from a shop. That is theft, yes, and illegal, and should be dealt with. In principle, it would ALL be considered theft, regardles of the actual material that was stolen, and the law often sees it that way. On a humane/moral level, however, I (and I imagine many people) would not regard the theft of a bread by a kid so he doesn't have to starve to death as being of the same 'wrongfulness' as a rich dude stealing a TV. In fact, I would have no problem with it, in that circumstance. That's not the law, granted, that's my own moral judgement on the matter.
One can lament this or not, but just as in your example of (breaking the) copy-licencing by the *IAA, which tries to limit ones' freedom (of use), or one of the GPL, which tries to safeguard your freedom, people do not morally measure this in the same way. This may seem inconsistent if you only take the law as the absolute and sole measurement (just as in the case of the theft), and not your own individual morals.
I, however, am rather of the opinion that the morality of what is right and wrong, and what the laws say, often contradicts eachother, and that in that case, your individual morality and ethics is more important then whatever law has been passed. My moral judgement has no problems if someone 'steals' a bread for survival, nor does it have any problems when someone is downloading and copying music for non-commercial use.
In general, I would claim the answer to your question about why people regard one thing as ok, and another thing not, is because people think it's ok to act (even if that action is that of a rebel, dissident or illegal) for more freedom, while they think it sucks when freedom is being limited. And thus, while in the two instances, it's both about licenses, one is limiting your freedom in use and distribution, and the other tries to safeguard that freedom; thus, infringement on the one is deemed not very objectionable (in a personal moral), while the other is.
I hope this answered your question.
You've made a good point: the (ultra) left as well as the right of the populace protest against the EU, but for totally (and diametrically oposed) reasons. So it's not easy to know how to go further, if further means 'better', because the ideas for what constitutes 'better' are not the same.
Yet, I think that both sides would rather prefer a directly elected person or group of persons which draw up laws for millions of EU-citizens but without ever having to give any sort of responsability to those same citizens, then a bunch of non-elected and undemocratic bureaucrats, who's main purpose in life is pushing through things *they* want to get through, regardless of what the people themselves want.
But then again, it's all too known that they don't represent the people.
The reason why this particular issue of the EU is not dealt with, is NOT because there is so much difference of opinion about it with the populace - most of them would prefer something chosen democratic, then something that is appointed - but because the politicians in power don't want to lose their power.
"But it does constitute fucking with us, or at least challenging our power."
So, basically, when a country disagrees with the USA, it is challenging your power, and you (at least the administration) feels it's then allowed to use force?
"Hell, same thing with beer. 97% of the beer consumed in the US is cheap, mass produced, bland Bud, Miller, and Coors. Most people just don't appreciate quality beer or music. But they pay for it anyway. And that is where the big corps get their profits."
All too true.
Well, maybe except for Belgians and their Belgian Beer, perhaps...
"As unfair as it is, it makes perfect sense."
No it doesn't. It *seems* to make sense, when you take the anglo-saxon neo-liberal capitalistic viewpoint as the only premise possible.
What you say only makes sense, if you accept that premise. But, in the exact same sense, it makes 'perfect sense' for companies to use child labour: they are cheaper and easier to control then adults. Thus, the profitmargin augments, thus the stockholders are happy because profit is larger, which is the point in a captilatic worldview.
You see? Using that premise, it makes perfectly sense to use childlabour. But I don't see any votes going up in the West to (re)introduce childlabour, do you? So, maybe, just maybe, the premise you start is all wrong, and it *does not* make sense to make genetic discrimination, because we not only live in a market-driven society, but also a social one.
There we go again...
"You have the right to "genetic privacy" as much as you have the right of privacy of your criminal record; but when you go to be insured or employed, you sign documents waiving that right because otherwise the insurers or employers won't even look at you, and for good reason."
1)you equate having a criminal record with genetics; this analogy is false.
2)companies are hold to the same laws as individual citizens, and it are those citizens that vote for the people who make the laws - NOT the corporations (at least, in principle, I know corporatism has gone a long way in corrupting this, especially in the USA).
3)since companies are subject to those laws, they can put in their policies and contracts whatever they want; the provisions which are illegal will remain illegal and unenforcable (at least in Europe).
4)If you would move to another state, that state too should make similar laws. At the end, a federal law could make it valid upon ALL states.
5)One should make it a viable option to sue every company which discriminates with huge fines, this, in the same sort of skewed anglo-saxon neo-capitalistic reasoning, would lead to high costs and other unwelcome results, and thus, it would become less of an incentive to go for genetic screening.
I'm getting sick and tired of this sort of warped, single-minded view of how the world should work according to capitalistic principles. The market as darwinian system...yeah, has been claimed already in the 19th century. It's all a bunch of crap, because we, as humans, do not only consider market forces as the only driving force of our existence. I mean, what, with this sort of reasoning, it makes perfect sense for companies to use childlabour: they are way cheaper and more easy to control then adults. From 'the perspective of the companies' thus, it makes perfect sense to be for child-labour. So, why don't we see votes for (re)introducing childlabour?
Why...could it be that the interests and profits of corporations isn't *really* our primary concern?
What a novel idea!
"Booting out unfree nations would still leave plenty of sworn enemies of US policy (if not the US itself) such as France and Germany."
;-) Oficially, even the USA only sees the axis of evil-countries as THE sworn enemies. France is regarded as an annoyance, just as the USA is to Europe (and, granted, a bit more the an annoyance now, though a lot less then that during the clinton-administration).
Hmm..we might have a different interpretations about 'sworn enemies'.
"The negotiations will doubtless be long, fractious and could lead to war."
It would be impossible to do, in any pragmatic sense. You seem to fail to realise that (just as with democracy in general) the system isn't chosen because it is so perfect, but because every other concept is even worse. It is *impossible* to be fair in arguing which countries should be allowed and which not, when yet other countries have to vote on their 'basic western values'. For starters, not all countries are western, so why should they follow western values? Who will decide on those values, and who will decide if, and to what level they are not met?
The USA, for instance, has a long history of holding the hand above (and even simply support or get in power) dictatorial regimes. And they are not alone in it (though the most obvious example, in modern times). Do you really imagine the USA (or any other country) which supports such regimes, because they do their bidding, will actually vote against these puppet-states they themselves created? If they are hypocrite enough to put them in power in the first place, do you have any confidence in their willingness to kick them out and condemn them?
Have you any doubt about the disastrious effects when one would be consistent in such a 'fair' voting? First of all, you would have to forbid those countries on themselves to vote, because otherwise, obviously, they'll vote so they are included in the UN. But for that to happen, who will vote it? It's a chicken-and-eg problem. Secondly, in *any* p^ramatic sense, this is unfeasable, even if one would try it. For instance, Israel, while being a 'democracy' has been condemned numerous times for serious human-rights violations, making it clear being a 'democracy' does not mean one isn't as 'bad' as a dictatorship (I would claim a 'democratic' country where a minority is so strongly suppressed and occupied, with a 'dictatorship of the majority' could be worse then a truelly enlightened dictatorship, for instance)...Also, almost all the major oil-states would have nothing to say...china, a country with 1 billion people, would have no vote, countries, even possessing nuclear weapons, would be denied their say in the UN...does all that seem like a good recipe for a 'new' UN?
It would simply be impossible to form a 'clique' of free states in any objective way, and, even if they did, they wouldn't be representing the world, only some extended 'G-8' type of organisation. Broke as it may be, the current UN at least has more to offer then an arbitrarily chosen group of 'really democratic/free' countries. If one would actually try what you suggest, the world would certainly NOT become a safer place.
""Thus, it was for the UN to decide, not for the US"
Really? Show me where it says that."
What you mean? Are you claiming that all your above quotes where it says 'decides," it is meant that 'the usa decides'? That seems ludicrous: those resolutions and all the paragraphs you quote were made by the UN, and the 'decides' means 'we' (= the UN) decides.
And if it's the UN that decides, it's not possible to claim it says it is 'the usa' that decides, nor that the UN meant or even implied it was for the USA to decide.