I don't advocate pure free market economics. I just advocate getting the feds out of everything I can possibly get them out of. Both because (a) they're not authorized to do it and so are breaking the compact with the citizens, regardless if the citizens are educated well enough to figure it out or not, and (b) because control exerted closer to home (state, town, home) will give me MORE control, not less.
There are VERY few things that can actually end up with a monopoly on my spending, because there are VERY few things that I actually have to have. If I don't want to spend my money on X, simply presuming you're not the government, then you can't make me do so (and any attempt to do so will cause me to dig my heels in further.) Now, if you're one of those people that thinks they have to have a cellphone, satellite tv, a car, beer, or wear Axe, or the latest clothing, etc... well, then you have made your choices differently than mine, and I wish you well with them (but I really don't care much. You are not my problem. My primary concern lies with my family and that will remain true until or unless someone else decides to do that job for me, and do it as well or better.)
I don't support deregulation. I support ending regulation by the feds, and moving it to the states, who are the entities actually authorized to regulate most everything, barring interstate commerce. If the states choose not to regulate, perhaps the towns will. Or perhaps I'll make my own choices. OMG WTF BBQ, eh? And if the feds want to go back to legitimately regulating actual interstate commerce, that's fine by me as well.
Corporations have to look out for themselves. And that's fine, they should do that. Should I *choose* to buy corn flakes (doubtful, I'm more of a eggs-from-the-neighbor's chickens guy, but lets run with it), I'm happy because I felt that was a good way to spend my money. Otherwise, you see, I would not have CHOSEN to do it. This is about how I choose for ME, not what I might be doing to the corporations... because frankly, I don't care about that -- that's the corporation's lookout, and I'm sure they've got that handled. If not, they'll go out of business, and again -- I don't care. But, again, should I CHOOSE to buy corn flakes, the company gets some income, and they can make MORE corn flakes, which, presumably, is also good for me since (apparently) I like corn flakes. So they're around longer, and all is good from my POV.
I'm not sitting here plotting to take corporations down. What a total waste of time and energy that would be. I simply buy what I need, based on metrics that increase the position of myself and my family, and the corporations that enable that and let me know they enable that, get some income. The others don't, so hopefully, for their sake, they're doing good biz with someone else, or there's gonna be a bankruptcy in the future. But again - I don't care. It's not my problem. Living MY life is my problem. My kids future is my problem. Learning not to waste money on things I actually don't need is my obligation to my family. So that's what I do. If Cargil gets to continue to make corn flakes... I can choose to be part of that, or not. There are VERY few things in the actual pursuit of my life that offer me no choice. When they come up, it is almost a dead certain guarantee that they will have the government's nasty little fingerprints all over them, AND that I'm really not going to like whatever it is.
But can you choose whether businesses do business with you?
Yes, I can. And the more I save by choosing not to buy into a lot of the things corporations offer (and let's face it, there are very few of those things that I really have to have) the more powerful I become in being able to make other choices.
If enough people start using Facebook to pay their bills that your gas company requires it, do you stop heating your house with natural gas to avoid Facebook?
Since Facebook's TOS already completely lock out some citizens, I don't think you'll see them used for any such thing. But yes, I can change how my home is heated should I so choose, I have quite a few choices available to me. Gas, electric, fuel pellet, a good insulation job and the heat my computers make, etc. I can purchase a solar power system, I can put up solar concentrators and pipe heated fluids around, etc. There's nothing even approaching a lock-in here. And again, the more I save by not buying useless things -- like cellphone service, loans at interest and mortgages, satellite tv, beer, cigarettes, etc. -- the more powerful I become in the choices available to me.
If Wal-Mart being a monopsopy in goods causes almost all drills to start being made out of plastic and pushes the price of higher quality drills up, do you just give up on a drill for that home repair because it's now out of your price range?
Already own a full workshop, including sharpeners, drill presses, bits galore, etc. Instead of satellite TV, you see. IF Whamalart manages (by magic, because the idea is ridiculous on its face, frankly) to corner the drill bit market, I'll be able to make more money because I'm already invested in quality gear. Again, because I chose to do things that benefited me, rather than having a gun held to my head that insists I HAD to buy satellite TV or beer or or buy using credit or whatever, really.
And if Ford pays enough money to have your state require car inspectors check for Ford-certified mufflers, do you just move?*
Sigh. Seriously, why would I even care? But (a) my state doesn't impose "inspection"; (b) I don't have to drive, (c) I'm probably buying electric next time anyway, (d) I ride a bicycle and I live right next door -- literally -- to the local shops I actually choose to patronize (food, hardware.) Choice, you see. I made them carefully, and I win.
So you don't like having your named attached to bad things
What? My name?? No, I don't like my MONEY being the enabling force for bad things. This isn't about reputation, this is about reality. And trust me, I buy carefully enough, and very little new, that very little of my money goes through a corporation and off to influence politics. What little they do get to use that way (for instance, I bought a snowblower last year... they're entitled to the resulting income), they earned from me legitimately, and I have NO problem with it. The government earns very little from me for anything I want; mostly, they just steal and do stuff I *don't* want. One exception is roads, and that largely via taxes at the pump. Overall, I'll take the corporations every time.
So, the US federal government doesn't have authority over X so can't legal force issues over X. Yeahh, in the future we finally undo the US federal government's meddling over X. Well, oops, nearly every US state (if not every US state) has authority over X. So, the corruption gets funneled to state government, at higher corporate/personal expense but similarly the same.
It is a great deal easier to control who runs your state than it is who runs your country. Even more so, your county, your town, etc. The further away from the issues they governing force gets, the less well it will govern, or at
One of the reasons the US has spent over a decade cleaning up really hot, nastily contaminated Soviet era devices is a period of less than a single year's delay in the ongoing process of maintenance in the collapsing USSR. Do you think we'd do better, with the sort of congress we have now?
Yes, I do. Paul can't do squat along these lines unless he gets congress to go along. Which he cannot do. There's zero risk here. The DOE (and every other department Paul would like to eliminate) exists as a consequence of establishing legislation and an already obtained presidential signature, or a sufficiency of votes to obviate the need. That means that either the courts have to shut the department(s) in question down (not happening) or the legislature has to shut them down (also not happening.) Paul can't do it -- the president has no such authority.
Paul can't make legislation. All he can do is veto legislation, or suggest it -- which is a far cry from actually getting it made into law. The area he can work in and get things done is constrained to foreign policy, war, basically commander in chief stuff. That, and delay legislation if he doesn't like it -- and we know that the metric he will use is "is it constitutional?"
This means congress will not face the questions you lay on the table here; and that in turn means it's a non-issue.
Any decent programmer should be able to write a secure program. Read your input, reject it if it's not what you want.
That's true as far as it goes, but there are vulnerabilities in the language's collection of input, in the webserver's collecting of data and parsing of packets, in the network system layers below that, even, sometimes, in CPU instruction sets. And then there's social engineering, human error (just because you "can" write a secure program doesn't mean you *did*) and of course physical access is the nastiest risk of all.
It's really not as simple as we would like it to be. Unfortunate, but true.
the problem is that he would more or less abolish not just the bad aspects, but the good ones and would in all likelihood shrink the government far more than what is required to bring things back into control.
The president's power is limited to veto (which is a roadblock unless congress can reach a higher degree of agreement than it usually manages... and it's unlikely he would roadblock something that was constitutional on its face) and foreign policy actions (where frankly, I completely agree with his ideas: bring 'em home, close the bases, stop the wars.) The rest of Paul's ideas, at least most of them, good or bad -- he can't implement without the consent of congress, and that means, can't, really. His value is in the military pullback, and the raising of constitutional issues nationally -- that conversation is long, long overdue. There's an opportunity for four years of raising awareness here; or, of course, you can vote for the democrats or republicans again. You already know what that's going to get you. Without lube.
Because I can choose what corporations (or individuals, or used item venues, or barter events, etc.) I do business with (or not), and how much business to do if I decide to do business at all. I can't choose to do business with the government; they take my money by threat and coercion, they use it for things I would never stand behind, they make laws that force people to do things I would never have them forced to do, and in the end, they set the rules the corporations have to abide by -- and they have done so very poorly. So corporations are definitely quite a ways down the list of my concerns from a government operating well out of its authorized sphere. Getting government into constitutional compliance is far more important. Once there, it would be reasonable to revisit what the constitution allows, and perhaps make a few legitimate changes. Until then, I am not worried about Apple; I am really, really concerned about the federal and state governments.
Never fear, there's still the Paul-messiah to believe in! I'm convinced he would never let messy political realities factor into his political decisions...
Actually, his record in this regard is excellent. Perhaps you should take a look before slandering the man.
I think there is a legitimate objection to contact necrophilia, and that is that a dead body, or body parts, no longer has an active immune system and is therefore very likely breeding little nasties that may not only do the active sexual actor harm, but anyone they come in contact with thereafter. It's a statistical argument, really, but one that holds up well in all other areas of body contact -- picking up a dead animal, for instance, is definitely contra-indicated -- we know this from long experience. And what with the appearance lately of various flesh-eating bacteria and the like, I think a very solid case can be made for ruling out this behavior based on health issues -- no matter how happy it might make the advocate otherwise.
As for the rest, sex and sexually charged activities with teenagers can only legitimately depend upon informed choice/consent, and the fact is, there are many adults who couldn't make an informed choice and/or perform responsibly in a sexual situation, and there are many teenagers who can. The "line in the sand" drawn by a specific age will do the wrong thing in a very large number of situations, and consequently represents very bad law. IMHO, it's just a placeholder for society's inability to face the issue squarely. Sex with pre-pubescent teens should be ruled out based on the very real risk of physical damage; I think society owes them protection in that regard, just as we protect the physically immature from other physical harms.
The problem here isn't that some software isn't free as in dollar cost, or even that it isn't free as in "I have the source code." Either of those -- or both at the same time -- can be malware.
The actual problem (here in the US) is that our government has vastly exceeded its constitutionally assigned authority. Either we fix that, or the problem remains. The constitution sets the absolute limits of legitimate authority, and the 4th amendment is very clear that the government is not authorized to obtain the warrant required to poke into our papers, our domiciles, our person, or our effects unless they (1) have probable cause, (2) supported by oath or affirmation, (3) describing the place to be searched, and (4) describing the person(s) or thing(s) to be seized.
We, the citizens, are responsible for this mess: We have repeatedly let the government step out of line, violating the constitution, accepting virtually any excuse the government handed out like credulous idiots.
We have a chance to throw a monkey wrench in this and at least promote a national dialog on the subject by voting for Ron Paul this time around. Regardless of if you agree with his specific policies, he offers us one critical thing that is more valuable than anything else any other candidate brings to the table: He respects, honors, and will obey the constitution. That means he'll serve as a roadblock against further unconstitutional legislation (which we are obviously in dire need of), limiting what gets through to those bills that can muster enough cross-aisle support to override a presidential veto.
Free software isn't going to save us. Only by putting in place a properly constituted and obedient government can we be saved. And that's going to be a much more difficult road, perhaps an impossible one, if we don't step up to the plate and do something now.
The pundits are right about one thing: time has truly run out. If you read these most recent bills, they are stunning in their overreach, blatant violations of the oaths sworn to uphold and defend the constitution by the lawmakers and any other public official who has supported these bills. This time it isn't just the felons, the people on the various government lists, foreigners, and people who want to fly who are going to get screwed.
This time, it's you. What are you going to do about it?
Doesn't matter if they are symmetric, or what philosophical hoops you jump through in your head: These factors are *real*. You screw with someone else -- they will turn around and screw with you. Plan on it. Expect it. Be assured of it. This isn't abstract philosophy: it is most concrete and reality-based ego, hate, pride, etc. It's not about thoughts: It's about bullets.
Borders are arbitrary and one cannot help where they are born. We're all humans and personally I believe that's fundamentally more important than an arbitrary man made definition like borders.
Agreed, but it's irrelevant. You screw with them; they'll screw with you, because they maintain an expectation that they will be able to pursue their cultural behaviors within their borders. As soon as you interfere with that expectation, you can expect blowback. Which you *caused* because you didn't understand, or thought you could avoid, the obvious consequences of your actions.
Understand that I'm not arguing this is right or proper: I'm just saying it's the way things are. It's not about philosophy: it's about anger, pride and ego. And, in the case of this particular fuckaroo, religion.
Was stepping in to prevent further persecution of the Jews in World War II really such a bad thing? I suppose you can argue that it was because Hitler stepped out of his borders than the allies were able to step in
We didn't step in to prevent the persecution of the Jews. We stepped in because Hitler was clueless enough to declare war on us four days after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Once in, we made it our business to fuck up everything in sight with a swastika on it, whether we liked it or not, or whether in involved bombing (relatively) innocent civilians or burning out entire cities full of them, or saving other citizens from the death camps. If the Germans thought it was good, we got in the way, bombed, stole, etc. If the Germans thought it was bad, we encouraged it. That's war. We had exactly one goal, and it wasn't to be friendly.
But that's the same thing I've been saying all along, just the other way around -- Hitler announced that he would interfere with a bunch of US citizens that we believed he had no right to interfere with, so in return, we commenced to skull fuck him and all his compatriots, Tojo, etc. Blowback.
Saving the Jews was an incidental event (as compared to initiation of our participation in the war... we just did it because we were there) and it happened quite a bit later (we weren't really aware of his Jewish "solution" at the time Hitler declared war, in fact.) Not saying it wasn't worth doing, or entirely appropriate, given the other events of the time, just that it can't be held up as the cause of our entry into the war.
Let's say for a minute that we were not in a war, and he hadn't attacked anyone outside his borders, and we learned about those ovens and showers and the number of people involved, perhaps through the German news organs. I think this is what you're trying to pry out of me: I don't think we should have stepped in. I think the German people needed to address that mess; what we should do in that kind of situation is stop doing business with them, period. Just cut off trade completely, and I mean every last thing in either direction, until they start acting like people we would like to say hello to. I think the Jews should have risen up, as well as the non Jews, and taken matters into their own hands, instead of marching meekly off, as far too many of them did. Just as we did with good old King George.
but then how is this different to Afghanistan?
Afghanistan did not declare war on us. No one did. On September 11th, 2001, 19 criminals, consisting of 15 Saudi Arabians, two from the United Arab Emirates, one Egyptian, and one Lebanese person, all following the most extreme tenets of a whacko religion (but I repeat myself) based out of Mecca, Saudi Arabia, and funded entirely by Saudi Arabian religious interests, committed an extreme act of violence within the borders of the USA that broke the laws of the USA and Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan and Iraq.
Then, in a fit of national stupidity unmatched since the implementation of the "war on drugs", the US attacked Iraq and then A
It doesn't matter if YOU think it's murder; these things are relevant only to the opinion of the actors. If you elect to step in and impose your view of what is ok, and what is not, then don't be surprised if they do the same to you, that's all. Likewise, doesn't matter if YOU think something is silly here; my point stands, because your opinion is irrelevant to the actual issue - only the people involved have effective opinions. You step across a national border and interfere with those, you'll likely experience blowback. It's obvious, really -- and your personal view of "right" or "wrong" doesn't change things even a little bit. What causes the blowback is you imposing your opinion on someone else without a socially relevant context to stand on.
The thing is, your absolutes are not their absolutes. Look. Suppose you eat a burger, which is ok in your circle of friends. And some PETA person comes along, chanting, "There are some absolutes which can't be ignored" and puts a bullet in your head. Imposing their absolutes on you. Or, some socialist comes along, decides you are oppressing the masses with your capitalist craziness, and *they* put a bullet in your head.
If your absolutes are so overwhelming to you that you insist on stepping into other societies to make the attempt to convert them to your behavioral norms by force, then I suggest that you are the one out of line. Two main reasons. First, they're not even going to pay attention to the point you were trying to make; no social change will come about as a consequence. Instead, they'll be just as offended as you would be if they stepped into your house and put a gun to YOUR wife's head for not covering her face or body or whatever the religotard freaky idea of the day is. And that's what they'll act on. That's what I mean by expect another 9/11.
If you want another society to change, then (a) make sure yours looks better to them, and (b) let THEM work it out internally. Don't use force. Force just makes people dig in their heels and in the end causes more harm than good. In YOUR house, you are the boss. In their house, you are a guest, at most.
Okay, I think Afghanistan is our business, because I hate seeing women executed for wearing the wrong clothing or just offending some guy. That !@#$ sucks. I think we do have an obligation to at least attempt to export civilization to those who desperately need it.
No. It is the business of a Afghans -- both the women and their male sympathizers -- to decide to do something about this. It is NOT our business. If you think it is, you are ALSO saying that is the Afghans business to export their ideas into OUR way of life by force. This is what national borders are for -- to allow different ideas to operate without interference. The people within, subject to the experiment, as it were, are the arbitrators of what to do, or not, about something, or even if something needs to be done. For our part, we have the legitimate option of deciding to trade with them, or not. Nothing else.
No, we can't agree. We have no more legitimacy telling Iran -- or Israel -- that they can't have nukes than they have telling us the same thing. Trying to tell them -- either of them -- that is just daring them to do it.
Either they can settle their problems amicably, or not. Either way, it shouldn't be our problem.
No, sadly, the 2nd amendment only provides the people with weapons. If they extend that grant to implement recourse, the government will provide those same people with death, or imprisonment, loss of family, property and all rights -- and then continue on doing the same things, the same ways.
Marvelous post. One of the best reads I've ever run into on slashdot.
However... after a careful read... this...
On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.
...is exactly where we are at in some of the cases of the very worst abuses. You mention that states can reverse issues (gun example), but they can also, simply by nodding, go along with a federal ruling. For instance when a state implements an ex post facto law increasing punishment after conviction and sentencing. At that point, there is no legal remedy -- at all. Because these usurpations don't just occur at the top -- there are a large number of legal actors (meaning, almost all of them) who subscribe to the idea that they can make any law they like as long as the legal system agrees at that level.
No, I really don't think it is. In fact, I would bet you good money that a majority of these people sincerely believe they are doing their very best for the country.
The real problem, I think, is that these people are truly amateurs and dilettantes doing work in roles that require experts in the most precise sense of the word. I have repeatedly seen senators and congressmen asked questions about the constitution, where they are unable to answer even in general. And no one holds their feet to the fire for it, either.
You punted on the eighth. Water-boarding; indefinite imprisonment without recourse or visits or information provided to family and/or friends about your whereabouts and/or condition; assassination by stealth without anything remotely resembling due process; million dollar bails; million dollar fines; imprisonment in the USA's involuntary sodomy system (1% of the population and counting upwards.) Hell, a DVD I was watching the other day blithely informed me I was subject to a half MILLION dollar fine if I had the temerity to share the thing (and no, I don't do that, but I was still massively offended by the ridiculous scale of the threat. If they can fine me half a million dollars for duplicating a $9 item, what is OK for me to do to the government officials who trample on all my rights like addled teenagers stomping around in a tub of grapes? Oh, yeah... that's right... nothing.)
The 4th amendment directly defines what is reasonable: "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Anything OTHER than that is unreasonable, constitutionally speaking. Look to the 1950's telecom laws for 100% confirmation that this was well understood by both congress and the courts.
We want the private sector to cooperate with the government on national security matters.
We want the private sector to not be assaulted by government employees operating in violation of both their oaths and the constitution. When it is blatantly obvious that the government is acting in such a manner -- as it clearly was here -- then any entity that supports the government is equally guilty of malfeasance of the most egregious type, and deserves neither a pass on the matter or the respect (not to mention patronage) of the citizens in general.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't advocate pure free market economics. I just advocate getting the feds out of everything I can possibly get them out of. Both because (a) they're not authorized to do it and so are breaking the compact with the citizens, regardless if the citizens are educated well enough to figure it out or not, and (b) because control exerted closer to home (state, town, home) will give me MORE control, not less.
There are VERY few things that can actually end up with a monopoly on my spending, because there are VERY few things that I actually have to have. If I don't want to spend my money on X, simply presuming you're not the government, then you can't make me do so (and any attempt to do so will cause me to dig my heels in further.) Now, if you're one of those people that thinks they have to have a cellphone, satellite tv, a car, beer, or wear Axe, or the latest clothing, etc... well, then you have made your choices differently than mine, and I wish you well with them (but I really don't care much. You are not my problem. My primary concern lies with my family and that will remain true until or unless someone else decides to do that job for me, and do it as well or better.)
I don't support deregulation. I support ending regulation by the feds, and moving it to the states, who are the entities actually authorized to regulate most everything, barring interstate commerce. If the states choose not to regulate, perhaps the towns will. Or perhaps I'll make my own choices. OMG WTF BBQ, eh? And if the feds want to go back to legitimately regulating actual interstate commerce, that's fine by me as well.
Brother (or sister), are you ever confused.
Corporations have to look out for themselves. And that's fine, they should do that. Should I *choose* to buy corn flakes (doubtful, I'm more of a eggs-from-the-neighbor's chickens guy, but lets run with it), I'm happy because I felt that was a good way to spend my money. Otherwise, you see, I would not have CHOSEN to do it. This is about how I choose for ME, not what I might be doing to the corporations... because frankly, I don't care about that -- that's the corporation's lookout, and I'm sure they've got that handled. If not, they'll go out of business, and again -- I don't care. But, again, should I CHOOSE to buy corn flakes, the company gets some income, and they can make MORE corn flakes, which, presumably, is also good for me since (apparently) I like corn flakes. So they're around longer, and all is good from my POV.
I'm not sitting here plotting to take corporations down. What a total waste of time and energy that would be. I simply buy what I need, based on metrics that increase the position of myself and my family, and the corporations that enable that and let me know they enable that, get some income. The others don't, so hopefully, for their sake, they're doing good biz with someone else, or there's gonna be a bankruptcy in the future. But again - I don't care. It's not my problem. Living MY life is my problem. My kids future is my problem. Learning not to waste money on things I actually don't need is my obligation to my family. So that's what I do. If Cargil gets to continue to make corn flakes... I can choose to be part of that, or not. There are VERY few things in the actual pursuit of my life that offer me no choice. When they come up, it is almost a dead certain guarantee that they will have the government's nasty little fingerprints all over them, AND that I'm really not going to like whatever it is.
Yes, I can. And the more I save by choosing not to buy into a lot of the things corporations offer (and let's face it, there are very few of those things that I really have to have) the more powerful I become in being able to make other choices.
Since Facebook's TOS already completely lock out some citizens, I don't think you'll see them used for any such thing. But yes, I can change how my home is heated should I so choose, I have quite a few choices available to me. Gas, electric, fuel pellet, a good insulation job and the heat my computers make, etc. I can purchase a solar power system, I can put up solar concentrators and pipe heated fluids around, etc. There's nothing even approaching a lock-in here. And again, the more I save by not buying useless things -- like cellphone service, loans at interest and mortgages, satellite tv, beer, cigarettes, etc. -- the more powerful I become in the choices available to me.
Already own a full workshop, including sharpeners, drill presses, bits galore, etc. Instead of satellite TV, you see. IF Whamalart manages (by magic, because the idea is ridiculous on its face, frankly) to corner the drill bit market, I'll be able to make more money because I'm already invested in quality gear. Again, because I chose to do things that benefited me, rather than having a gun held to my head that insists I HAD to buy satellite TV or beer or or buy using credit or whatever, really.
Sigh. Seriously, why would I even care? But (a) my state doesn't impose "inspection"; (b) I don't have to drive, (c) I'm probably buying electric next time anyway, (d) I ride a bicycle and I live right next door -- literally -- to the local shops I actually choose to patronize (food, hardware.) Choice, you see. I made them carefully, and I win.
What? My name?? No, I don't like my MONEY being the enabling force for bad things. This isn't about reputation, this is about reality. And trust me, I buy carefully enough, and very little new, that very little of my money goes through a corporation and off to influence politics. What little they do get to use that way (for instance, I bought a snowblower last year... they're entitled to the resulting income), they earned from me legitimately, and I have NO problem with it. The government earns very little from me for anything I want; mostly, they just steal and do stuff I *don't* want. One exception is roads, and that largely via taxes at the pump. Overall, I'll take the corporations every time.
It is a great deal easier to control who runs your state than it is who runs your country. Even more so, your county, your town, etc. The further away from the issues they governing force gets, the less well it will govern, or at
Yes, I do. Paul can't do squat along these lines unless he gets congress to go along. Which he cannot do. There's zero risk here. The DOE (and every other department Paul would like to eliminate) exists as a consequence of establishing legislation and an already obtained presidential signature, or a sufficiency of votes to obviate the need. That means that either the courts have to shut the department(s) in question down (not happening) or the legislature has to shut them down (also not happening.) Paul can't do it -- the president has no such authority.
Paul can't make legislation. All he can do is veto legislation, or suggest it -- which is a far cry from actually getting it made into law. The area he can work in and get things done is constrained to foreign policy, war, basically commander in chief stuff. That, and delay legislation if he doesn't like it -- and we know that the metric he will use is "is it constitutional?"
This means congress will not face the questions you lay on the table here; and that in turn means it's a non-issue.
Very well written; enjoyed it.
That's true as far as it goes, but there are vulnerabilities in the language's collection of input, in the webserver's collecting of data and parsing of packets, in the network system layers below that, even, sometimes, in CPU instruction sets. And then there's social engineering, human error (just because you "can" write a secure program doesn't mean you *did*) and of course physical access is the nastiest risk of all.
It's really not as simple as we would like it to be. Unfortunate, but true.
The president's power is limited to veto (which is a roadblock unless congress can reach a higher degree of agreement than it usually manages... and it's unlikely he would roadblock something that was constitutional on its face) and foreign policy actions (where frankly, I completely agree with his ideas: bring 'em home, close the bases, stop the wars.) The rest of Paul's ideas, at least most of them, good or bad -- he can't implement without the consent of congress, and that means, can't, really. His value is in the military pullback, and the raising of constitutional issues nationally -- that conversation is long, long overdue. There's an opportunity for four years of raising awareness here; or, of course, you can vote for the democrats or republicans again. You already know what that's going to get you. Without lube.
Because I can choose what corporations (or individuals, or used item venues, or barter events, etc.) I do business with (or not), and how much business to do if I decide to do business at all. I can't choose to do business with the government; they take my money by threat and coercion, they use it for things I would never stand behind, they make laws that force people to do things I would never have them forced to do, and in the end, they set the rules the corporations have to abide by -- and they have done so very poorly. So corporations are definitely quite a ways down the list of my concerns from a government operating well out of its authorized sphere. Getting government into constitutional compliance is far more important. Once there, it would be reasonable to revisit what the constitution allows, and perhaps make a few legitimate changes. Until then, I am not worried about Apple; I am really, really concerned about the federal and state governments.
Actually, his record in this regard is excellent. Perhaps you should take a look before slandering the man.
I think there is a legitimate objection to contact necrophilia, and that is that a dead body, or body parts, no longer has an active immune system and is therefore very likely breeding little nasties that may not only do the active sexual actor harm, but anyone they come in contact with thereafter. It's a statistical argument, really, but one that holds up well in all other areas of body contact -- picking up a dead animal, for instance, is definitely contra-indicated -- we know this from long experience. And what with the appearance lately of various flesh-eating bacteria and the like, I think a very solid case can be made for ruling out this behavior based on health issues -- no matter how happy it might make the advocate otherwise.
As for the rest, sex and sexually charged activities with teenagers can only legitimately depend upon informed choice/consent, and the fact is, there are many adults who couldn't make an informed choice and/or perform responsibly in a sexual situation, and there are many teenagers who can. The "line in the sand" drawn by a specific age will do the wrong thing in a very large number of situations, and consequently represents very bad law. IMHO, it's just a placeholder for society's inability to face the issue squarely. Sex with pre-pubescent teens should be ruled out based on the very real risk of physical damage; I think society owes them protection in that regard, just as we protect the physically immature from other physical harms.
The problem here isn't that some software isn't free as in dollar cost, or even that it isn't free as in "I have the source code." Either of those -- or both at the same time -- can be malware.
The actual problem (here in the US) is that our government has vastly exceeded its constitutionally assigned authority. Either we fix that, or the problem remains. The constitution sets the absolute limits of legitimate authority, and the 4th amendment is very clear that the government is not authorized to obtain the warrant required to poke into our papers, our domiciles, our person, or our effects unless they (1) have probable cause, (2) supported by oath or affirmation, (3) describing the place to be searched, and (4) describing the person(s) or thing(s) to be seized.
We, the citizens, are responsible for this mess: We have repeatedly let the government step out of line, violating the constitution, accepting virtually any excuse the government handed out like credulous idiots.
We have a chance to throw a monkey wrench in this and at least promote a national dialog on the subject by voting for Ron Paul this time around. Regardless of if you agree with his specific policies, he offers us one critical thing that is more valuable than anything else any other candidate brings to the table: He respects, honors, and will obey the constitution. That means he'll serve as a roadblock against further unconstitutional legislation (which we are obviously in dire need of), limiting what gets through to those bills that can muster enough cross-aisle support to override a presidential veto.
Free software isn't going to save us. Only by putting in place a properly constituted and obedient government can we be saved. And that's going to be a much more difficult road, perhaps an impossible one, if we don't step up to the plate and do something now.
The pundits are right about one thing: time has truly run out. If you read these most recent bills, they are stunning in their overreach, blatant violations of the oaths sworn to uphold and defend the constitution by the lawmakers and any other public official who has supported these bills. This time it isn't just the felons, the people on the various government lists, foreigners, and people who want to fly who are going to get screwed.
This time, it's you. What are you going to do about it?
Doesn't matter if they are symmetric, or what philosophical hoops you jump through in your head: These factors are *real*. You screw with someone else -- they will turn around and screw with you. Plan on it. Expect it. Be assured of it. This isn't abstract philosophy: it is most concrete and reality-based ego, hate, pride, etc. It's not about thoughts: It's about bullets.
Agreed, but it's irrelevant. You screw with them; they'll screw with you, because they maintain an expectation that they will be able to pursue their cultural behaviors within their borders. As soon as you interfere with that expectation, you can expect blowback. Which you *caused* because you didn't understand, or thought you could avoid, the obvious consequences of your actions.
Understand that I'm not arguing this is right or proper: I'm just saying it's the way things are. It's not about philosophy: it's about anger, pride and ego. And, in the case of this particular fuckaroo, religion.
We didn't step in to prevent the persecution of the Jews. We stepped in because Hitler was clueless enough to declare war on us four days after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. Once in, we made it our business to fuck up everything in sight with a swastika on it, whether we liked it or not, or whether in involved bombing (relatively) innocent civilians or burning out entire cities full of them, or saving other citizens from the death camps. If the Germans thought it was good, we got in the way, bombed, stole, etc. If the Germans thought it was bad, we encouraged it. That's war. We had exactly one goal, and it wasn't to be friendly.
But that's the same thing I've been saying all along, just the other way around -- Hitler announced that he would interfere with a bunch of US citizens that we believed he had no right to interfere with, so in return, we commenced to skull fuck him and all his compatriots, Tojo, etc. Blowback.
Saving the Jews was an incidental event (as compared to initiation of our participation in the war... we just did it because we were there) and it happened quite a bit later (we weren't really aware of his Jewish "solution" at the time Hitler declared war, in fact.) Not saying it wasn't worth doing, or entirely appropriate, given the other events of the time, just that it can't be held up as the cause of our entry into the war.
Let's say for a minute that we were not in a war, and he hadn't attacked anyone outside his borders, and we learned about those ovens and showers and the number of people involved, perhaps through the German news organs. I think this is what you're trying to pry out of me: I don't think we should have stepped in. I think the German people needed to address that mess; what we should do in that kind of situation is stop doing business with them, period. Just cut off trade completely, and I mean every last thing in either direction, until they start acting like people we would like to say hello to. I think the Jews should have risen up, as well as the non Jews, and taken matters into their own hands, instead of marching meekly off, as far too many of them did. Just as we did with good old King George.
Afghanistan did not declare war on us. No one did. On September 11th, 2001, 19 criminals, consisting of 15 Saudi Arabians, two from the United Arab Emirates, one Egyptian, and one Lebanese person, all following the most extreme tenets of a whacko religion (but I repeat myself) based out of Mecca, Saudi Arabia, and funded entirely by Saudi Arabian religious interests, committed an extreme act of violence within the borders of the USA that broke the laws of the USA and Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan and Iraq.
Then, in a fit of national stupidity unmatched since the implementation of the "war on drugs", the US attacked Iraq and then A
It doesn't matter if YOU think it's murder; these things are relevant only to the opinion of the actors. If you elect to step in and impose your view of what is ok, and what is not, then don't be surprised if they do the same to you, that's all. Likewise, doesn't matter if YOU think something is silly here; my point stands, because your opinion is irrelevant to the actual issue - only the people involved have effective opinions. You step across a national border and interfere with those, you'll likely experience blowback. It's obvious, really -- and your personal view of "right" or "wrong" doesn't change things even a little bit. What causes the blowback is you imposing your opinion on someone else without a socially relevant context to stand on.
You actually inspire hope.
also...
The thing is, your absolutes are not their absolutes. Look. Suppose you eat a burger, which is ok in your circle of friends. And some PETA person comes along, chanting, "There are some absolutes which can't be ignored" and puts a bullet in your head. Imposing their absolutes on you. Or, some socialist comes along, decides you are oppressing the masses with your capitalist craziness, and *they* put a bullet in your head.
If your absolutes are so overwhelming to you that you insist on stepping into other societies to make the attempt to convert them to your behavioral norms by force, then I suggest that you are the one out of line. Two main reasons. First, they're not even going to pay attention to the point you were trying to make; no social change will come about as a consequence. Instead, they'll be just as offended as you would be if they stepped into your house and put a gun to YOUR wife's head for not covering her face or body or whatever the religotard freaky idea of the day is. And that's what they'll act on. That's what I mean by expect another 9/11.
If you want another society to change, then (a) make sure yours looks better to them, and (b) let THEM work it out internally. Don't use force. Force just makes people dig in their heels and in the end causes more harm than good. In YOUR house, you are the boss. In their house, you are a guest, at most.
ok, but if you won't step out, don't expect them to step out. Prepare yourself for more 9/11 attacks, etc.
No. It is the business of a Afghans -- both the women and their male sympathizers -- to decide to do something about this. It is NOT our business. If you think it is, you are ALSO saying that is the Afghans business to export their ideas into OUR way of life by force. This is what national borders are for -- to allow different ideas to operate without interference. The people within, subject to the experiment, as it were, are the arbitrators of what to do, or not, about something, or even if something needs to be done. For our part, we have the legitimate option of deciding to trade with them, or not. Nothing else.
No, we can't agree. We have no more legitimacy telling Iran -- or Israel -- that they can't have nukes than they have telling us the same thing. Trying to tell them -- either of them -- that is just daring them to do it.
Either they can settle their problems amicably, or not. Either way, it shouldn't be our problem.
No, sadly, the 2nd amendment only provides the people with weapons. If they extend that grant to implement recourse, the government will provide those same people with death, or imprisonment, loss of family, property and all rights -- and then continue on doing the same things, the same ways.
Marvelous post. One of the best reads I've ever run into on slashdot.
However... after a careful read... this...
No, I really don't think it is. In fact, I would bet you good money that a majority of these people sincerely believe they are doing their very best for the country.
The real problem, I think, is that these people are truly amateurs and dilettantes doing work in roles that require experts in the most precise sense of the word. I have repeatedly seen senators and congressmen asked questions about the constitution, where they are unable to answer even in general. And no one holds their feet to the fire for it, either.
You punted on the eighth. Water-boarding; indefinite imprisonment without recourse or visits or information provided to family and/or friends about your whereabouts and/or condition; assassination by stealth without anything remotely resembling due process; million dollar bails; million dollar fines; imprisonment in the USA's involuntary sodomy system (1% of the population and counting upwards.) Hell, a DVD I was watching the other day blithely informed me I was subject to a half MILLION dollar fine if I had the temerity to share the thing (and no, I don't do that, but I was still massively offended by the ridiculous scale of the threat. If they can fine me half a million dollars for duplicating a $9 item, what is OK for me to do to the government officials who trample on all my rights like addled teenagers stomping around in a tub of grapes? Oh, yeah... that's right... nothing.)
The 4th amendment directly defines what is reasonable: "no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Anything OTHER than that is unreasonable, constitutionally speaking. Look to the 1950's telecom laws for 100% confirmation that this was well understood by both congress and the courts.
We want the private sector to not be assaulted by government employees operating in violation of both their oaths and the constitution. When it is blatantly obvious that the government is acting in such a manner -- as it clearly was here -- then any entity that supports the government is equally guilty of malfeasance of the most egregious type, and deserves neither a pass on the matter or the respect (not to mention patronage) of the citizens in general.