As for "privacy" concerns... um there are none. You're in PUBLIC while at a PUBLIC SCHOOL.
Being in PUBLIC does not waive your rights as a human being.
Do you believe that teachers have the right to rape and murder their students, or take away their lunch money (but only while at Public school)?
The right to privacy did not suddenly begin to exist when we started to demarcate the earth into plots of land and assign ownership.
The right to "privacy" is a fundamental human right. It is not contingent on your private property.
You would seem to believe that you have MORE right to own a tract of land, than you have over your own body.
Your position that privacy rights do not exist in "public" is the same as taking the position that privacy rights do not exist at all. The vast majority of the human race owns NO PROPERTY and would thus be infringed.
You don't need to PAY anyone for the exclusive right to monitor and supervise your own person.
The only right you implicitly waive in a public area is the right to be noticed and seen by other people in that area (because they can't but help notice and see what is going on around them), so you can't possibly reasonably expect them to not notice and see you.
However there is also an implied exhange occuring. You can see and notice anyone else who is also present in that public area. This is fair.
Once you introduce security camera's and one way mirrors into the mix, you change the equation. But we didn't automatically agree to such monitoring by virtue of the place being labeled "PUBLIC". Every place is morally public in respect of other people who are present in the same location.
The mere existence of surveilance technology does not make its usage moral. (any more than does the mere existance of military technology make it moral for me to kill people with it).
The "owner" of the land DOES NOT dictate what human rights people have.
If you follow me around without my consent, I would feel personally assaulted by you. I am no less assaulted because you do it with hidden cameras or tracking devices. And I am no less assaulted if you do it on PUBLIC property or in a shopping mall. You don't have a right to follow me around. And I do have a right to be left alone.
I would appreciate it, if you want to surrender your rights you don't presume to surrender mine as well.
I thought that the wonderbra example, was chosen, non-arbitrarily. It implied (to me) that the ability to skip sexual material was an especially important consumer right. The example seemed to imply that there was no innate right to skip commercial material unless the viewer objects on some specified basis (such as sexual content).
And up to three years in prison for camcordering a movie? THREE YEARS?! Guys spend less time in prison for rape!
It is clear that the public considers bringing a camcorder to the theatre to be a more heinous offence than rape. Rape only has 1 victim. But when you bring a camcorder to a theatre you are raping America.
Remember, you elected these people. Now sit down and shut up before the commercials start.
A bit of research and theory suggests that, while these patents are a big pain in the US, there might be a case for implementing them in developing countries, in order to reward entrepreneurs who find successful business models and practices.
Undeveloped countries are already being screwed over by patents held on inventions already invented in 1st world nations.
Many undeveloped nations would be better off not recognizing patents at all. Particularily patents on medicine.
By disregarding patents this would allow locals (of the undeveloped nation) to compete with much wealthier foreign corporations who not only have more money, but control all the patents.
Patents should not be allowed to hinder nations in achieving 1st world status.
Who created numbers? Who created mathematics? Language? Ideas cannot be owned. There is no such thing as "stealing" an idea, except in the ramblings of a few confused souls.
You are dead on correct with this. One of the central premises in math is that any mathematical theorem is true or false independantly of who discovers it or when it was discovered. Aliens can also discover the exact same mandelbrot set, or the exact same PI. It does not derive from any free choice.
These truths simply *are*.
IP laws a means to encourage discovery. IP laws do not exist to discourage a wrong, in the same way as a prohibition against murder is in law because murder is actually considered to be wrong.
sharing of ideas and copying ideas are actually considered to be good things. The monopoly is wrong.
The IP laws grant monopolies hopefully to encourage more invention than would otherwise take place. IF they do not encourage invention then they are simply creating monopolies (which are harmful).
You make good points, but the way things work today, when do you think the US would deem China standards "good enough" if it was profitable for them to keep sanctions in place?
I can only say when I think the US "ought" to deem Chinese standards "good enough". I can't tell you when a particular administration would "deem" chinese standards good enough.
However in order for any such tarriff to have any positive effect the law which creates the tarriff would probably need to have specific benchmarks in place which dictate when the tarriff will expire and how to modify the tarriff based on actual goals.
A tariff which simply says "7% on metalwork goods" without any connection to actual human rights, environmental or labour rights issues is not going to achieve any of those aims.
For example. A Tarriff could read "X% on all imports to be waived if mercury emissions are reduced to XXX", or "X% to be waived if the right to strike is granted to labour unions", "x% to be waved if women are granted the right to vote".
etc....
The law mandating the tariff should have built in rules for reducing or terminating it. Only that will encourage any specific action.
Also, Germany (for instance) has a lot better worker protection than the US, should the US govermnent encourage Germany to sanction the US?
German citizens should probably encourage their government to put tariffs on US imports until the US raises its standards to German standards. Presumably Germany would have even harsher standards against China than the US would.
The crux of the issue is: Who gets to decide which labor rights/human rights/workplace safety rules/whatever are aproppriate? Nations disagree on those issues! As I can see there is just one way ahead:
I say each nation should decide democratically what ethics it wants to impose on corporations.
There is no need for agreement. China is not obligated to adhere to any American ethical standard. Likewise, American companies can go ahead and only give people 2 weeks of vacation, but if they want to import into Germany, then perhaps Germany would want to impose a tariff because German people believe 2 weeks vacation is unethically short, and they believe that 8 weeks is what is minimally necessary for human dignity.
Corporations either way are still allowed to compete by any means which are ethically neutral.
Different sanction regimes should be controlled on the international level. If Norway thinks that Spain is subsidizing their ship production industry (they are, btw, just like everyone else), they should NOT call down sanctions on their beliefs alone.
If the people of Norway believe that subsidizing ship production is immoral then they are within their rights to put tariffs against countries which subsidize ship production.
Then it would just be might makes right. Everyone could make up excuses for sanctioning whomever they wanted, but it would be the richer countries that won out in the end - this is not far from the status quo today.
If the tariffs were put into law on the basis of achieving specific goals, it would be up to the courts of that nation to decide whether another nation was in compliance or should still be subject to a tariff.
Instead, an international UN panel should decide if a certain human rights trangression warranted sanctions, and EU courts should do the same with respect to trade subsidies inside Europe, and I suppose NAFTA or something could do it over in the Americas. The important thing is that we have a rule of law when deciding whether sanctions are warranted, not just invoke them on the basis of our own biased bellies.
I agree with the rule of law.
I don't presume that the UN is any more lawful than any other national courts. However in this case notional courts have a vested interest in interpretting their laws properly.
I was with you up to the point where you said if we impose tariffs on countries that don't uphold American labor and environmental standards, the corporations and low-cost countries would roll over and live with it.
I did not say low-cost countries would roll over and live with it. I said the CORPORATIONS would roll over and live with hiring american workers in america if that was the cheapest way to sell products to American consumers.
All of these things are luxuries that no nation can afford in the long term. The European economies are already bleeding jobs like mad due to labor becoming prohibitively expensive with their 35-hour work weeks and 6 weeks of yearly vacations, while companies stick around only because they get massive government subsidies.
When you say "companies stick around". What exactly are you referring to? The board of directors? The shareholders? Certainly *not* the workers who are the only ones who actually do anything.
Maybe companies will packup and take their natural resources with them? Take the land? You CANT take your property with you when you leave.
"As an economy advances, some regulation and taxation becomes necessary to improve the quality of the labor pool (since automation makes most unskilled labor worthless), maintain law and order, and prevent inefficiencies from market failures, but those should be kept at the barest efficient minimum for the economy to remain truly competitive."
I guess regulations to protect human rights are unimportant to you. Afterall the labour pool is "worthless". Just slabs of meat. ripened past their expiry date.
And as for competition, what do you mean? Competitive with what? The extraterrestrials? Or do you mean competetive with corporations which abuse human rights? Those are the exact corporations we must do everything possible to insure are NOT competetive. And those are the corporations that tariffs must target.
Humans all over the earth have human rights. Not simply europeans and North Americans.
Any attempts at protectionism only make things worse, since imposing tariffs gets you matching tariffs from everyone else, and no modern nation's economy can survive having the world's markets closed to it (that's why embargoes are such a devastating punitive measure in world diplomacy). As big as our economy may be, the world's is bigger still, and we need it a lot more than it needs us.
No. Tariffs do not make things worse. Tariffs make it more difficult to do business with human rights abusers. We don't worry about the economic costs of blacklisting terrorist organizations. Why is doing business with human rights abusers so sacrosanct?
Moreover, you don't get matching tariffs from EVERYONE ELSE, only from the nations who choose to utilize human exploitation or destruction of the earth environment as a competetive strategy. Exactly the type of practice we OUTLAW at home. These are essentially ROGUE corporations who manufacture in third world countries to exploit cheap labour. They engage in what would be an illegal practice at home. Safety regulations and labour standards and environmental standards are not in place to save money or gain competetive advantage. They are there for ethical reasons.
Tariffs are simply a less extreme version of flat out embargoes (which you don't seem to be opposed to). Mild enough that democratic forces in that country will likely be able to compell compliance rather than so extreme as to crush democratic forces and encourage totalitarianism.
Moreoever.. tariffs prevent companies from simply packing up and leaving without requiring any subsidies. Seems to accomplish multiple purposes all with 1 fell swoop.
And the draw back is that corporations can't sell american products to malaysia or india or china as cheaply unless they fix their human rights abuses first? Sounds great. It makes human rights a profitable enterprise.
"What we really need to do is cut back on the frivolous regulations, break the unions, and prevent new ones from forming. Corporations are not our enemies, they are the hands that feed us, and biting them is highly inadviseable."
I like the master-dog analogy you use because it is exactly what corporatists want you to think. Human beings are DOGS and corporations are the MASTER.
Consumers FEED the corporations. And the consumers are human beings and the labour pool. And it is
Now why would I want to get my pay based on seniority rather than performance? I have several family members (father included) in construction unions and I don't see how the benefits would help in the technology sector. If anything, I'd see unionization as a sure way to move jobs out of the country even faster.
How do you measure "performance"?
As for Unionization moving jobs out of the country.
Environmental safety standards = sure way to move jobs out of the country.
Workplace safety standards = sure way to move jobs out of the country.
human (and worker) rights = sure way to move jobs out of the country.
abolishing child labour = sure way to move jobs out of the country.
Property Taxes = sure way to move jobs out of the country.
Corporate taxes = sure way to move job out of the country.
Public healthcare = sure way to move jobs out of the country.
paid lunchtime and bathroom breaks = sure way to move jobs out of the country.
minimum living wage = sure way to move jobs out of the country.
compensation for workplace injuries = sure way to move jobs out of the country.
What can we do to insure jobs stay in the country?
Encourage or compell all nations in the world to have the same (or higher) standards as America.
Dropping the standards locally is what corporations would like because corporations have no interests in human life or happiness.
Don't believe the hype. American consumers still have a lot of spending power. Once that spending power is gone, then absolutely nothing except dropping all standards will ever get jobs back into the country. Prior to that time, you can keep jobs in country by imposing tarrifs on all countries which fail to live up to "american standards" of decency and employee/human rights and environmental protection. Corporations still want to sell stuff to Americans. And if necessary they will hold their noses and manufacture things here if that is the most profitable way to do business here.
If china was to suddenly comply with all american standards including free speech, labour unions, workplace safety conditions and human rights. Do you think it would be so cheap to do business in china? For that matter.... do you think so many people would flee china and risk their lives packing themselves into shipping containers for the dream of living as an illegal alien in the USA.
Tarrifs on china and other countries which do not meet American human rights and environmental standards will have the effect of raising the standards abroad until corporations will have no where left to exploit labour or the environment unfairly. And then it would not seem so difficult to compete.
We are competing against the total exploitation of human life. How can you compete against that? Will you sacrifice your life and the lives of your family just so that your boss (for those of you who work for an outsourcing company) can make more profit?
Throwing away the right to unionize isn't going to stop outsourcing. Only a relative equalization of standards between nations. You can equalize it high, or equalize it low. Don't let the corporations choose.
Trouble is that over the last four years in particular, any moral justification that the U.S. has had for claiming the moral high ground has been gradually eroded by its actions.
you forget the most important moral justification of all.
God wants George W. Bush to be President.
Don't talk about that other stuff, it is unpatriotic and you are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Didn't you pay attention? America is bringing freedom to Iraq.
freedom
forget WMD.. we dont use that anymore.. now we say freedom.
"What kind of moron wrote this? CNN isn't called the Clinton News Network (ie, left wing) for nothing."
You are on to something there. I follow you.
"It's fairly typical of most media outlets, they cater to the lowest-common dominator of public person because they are the consumers for their product and thus generate the largest revenue. "
It is the "MOST" common denominator which generates the most revenue.
Lowest common demoninator is a term you nicked from your grade 7 math class. "Lowest" does not imply "most".
While taking a word which means something in 1 context and twisting it into a completely unrelated and non-applicable usage has widely been recognized as a completely valid and authoritative method of argument (amongst neoconservatives), it would still prove you wrong because the "lowest" common denominator you are denigrating voted for Bush.
Which by your logic would mean CNN should be called the "Bush News Network".
And Bush, if you don't know begins with a "B", dipshit.
"Behind closed doors and within the accounting offices of these large businesses though, you can bet they're thankful for tax breaks the right-wing stands for."
In fact... these media outlets are SO thankful, that they have a great interest in seeing the right wing administration which gives them these tax breaks (at the expense of future generations of middle class workers) they would do everything in their power to endanger the status quo by presenting leftist news coverage.
Because... behind closed doors... these media conglomerates (which I suppose you also think are controlled by Jewish athiests).. actually want to pay more taxes... wait.. that is a contradiction.. how about this:
Because the owners of corporate media conglomerates are all bleeding heart socialists. How else do you think they got so f*cking rich?
that doesn't work either...
lets. see.... I know. The corporate media conglomerates are right wing media outlets and actually spin the news to the right.
That makes sense.
They only appear left to neoconservatives because once in a while, rarely, they actually report on factual events. And facts, as everyone knows, are the inventions of the left.
The Right doesn't needs "facts" when it has "faith".
"The same is true regarding celebreties, vocally they're mostly left-wing liberals (coincides with their pampered lifestyle and popularity with the masses), but secretly they're happy about any tax relief the right-wing can afford them."
I think you mean "secretly they're happy about any tax cut that the US government can't afford, but the Right Wing can borrow and bill to future generations of tax payers (most of whome will continue to be middle class working stiffs)".
Since we are apparently in the mood to reveal the secret thoughts of third parties (who haven't told us, but being self-righteous pricks we will claim to know things we can not possibly know), I'll let you in on another "secret".
Secretly neoconservatives know that they are evil liers, but they are so good at lying they have fallen for their own deceit.
ohh... it wan't a secret?
I must be watching too much Clinton News. I should probably start thinking for a change.
Identifying the treaty involved is likely to narrow the other state involved down to one.
that is exactly my point.
I find it very disturbing that the government would have the nerve to rely on the authority of a legal document which they will not disclose to the court.
If the court accepts that then the government is free to rely on the authority of non-existant laws, and the supremacy of law goes straight out the window.
Each MLAT is a seperate treaty, and the language is not identical. The applicant has no way to challenge the claims of the government in regards to the MLAT if the government wont identify MLAT being relied upon.
Yes, it's clear that you don't believe in private property rights.
Why do you?
It seems that you take the "RIGHT" of private property for granted. Do you have a moral reason for this?
You aren't BORN with private property and you can't take it with you when you die. Neither did God give you any private property.
So please tell me, how exactly you reason that private property is some form of inalienable right?
When a group comes and takes your personal wealth and possesions using the threat of imprisonment or death, most of the rest of us in the english speaking world [call] that stealing.
Your statement presumes that the the wealth and possessions belongs to you. And it is not you who are simply trying to withhold the wealth and possessions which ought to be distributed in such a way as to bring maximum good overall. The question is "who owns the property?"
It doesn't make any difference what it is that the people stealing have decided that they "deserve" the product of your labor more than you do.
You have now introduced an interesting issue. You now seem to be backing down from your previous position and are now taking the position, that private property rights exist, but are limited to property that is a product of your personal labour.
Was that intentional?
If not, then then lets make your analogy a little bit more accurate. And lets drop the value loaded terms. You should have said: "It doesn't make any difference that you and majority disagree who should use the property."
As you are probably aware that the vast majority of wealth has been inherited and is not the product of any living person's labour. Moreover the vast majority of wealth is in real property and is not the product of any persons labour PAST OR PRESENT. It is land or natural resources. The EARTH is not the product of your labour.
I say it does make a difference what moral issues surround the usage or "hoarding" of property, and you ought to start putting forward an actual argument as to why your own personal decisions are more important than the interests of the whole if you want to convince anyone that private property rights 1) exist and 2) are more important than the right to life, liberty, the and pursuit of happiness (and avoidance of misery).
Although you claim to reject the "might makes right" philosophy, the only reason your group can steal from minorities is because their numbers give them might. They have NO moral right to steal.
No one has a moral right to "steal", because "stealing" is the taking away of property from another without color of right.
On the otherhand you can't be guilty of stealing something you have a right to take.
Taking what you have a RIGHT to take, is NOT STEALING.
I measure morality using the utilitarian principle. Increasing the overall happiness (and likewise decreasing misery) is good, decreasing overall happiness (or increasing overall misery) is bad.
I never argued that the majorty is physically capable of taking property you have. Perhaps it can't. Perhaps you are better armed.
The elite minorty would like to convince democrats (I mean real ones, not simply members of the right of centre political party), that "might makes right", or to spin our position to that of "might makes right". Bullshit! Not once did I say that the majority can overpower you.
If the overall happiness is increased by redistribution of wealth IT OUGHT TO BE DONE, and it doesn't matter if you own all the all the weapons and military expertise and you could wipe out the majorty with a blink of an eye. Your wealth ought to be redistributed if it is in the greater good to do so.
I put the question to you. Why should you be permitted to dictate what is to be done with certain property.
Even if you are superman and invincible, you ought to redistribute your wealth if it is "Good" to do so. "M
It is sad that in the United States you apparently need special standing to request the unsealing of information for a warrant/subpoena.
In Canada, the PUBLIC is considered to have an interest every time the STATE uses its power to seize something via a warrant/subpoena and any member of the public can request the information be unsealed and has standing to do so.
On a similar theme, the public has the right to order transcripts of court proceedings for the same reason.
The process of Justice is considered to be a matter of public interest. Not simply a private matter between the state and whoever the state is screwing over.
Their argument about the MLAT treaty is persuasive however. It seems to contradict their argument about terrorism however.
Either the seizure was according to the a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) and was therefore done on behalf of another country, or it was at the behest of US authorities to protect american national security.
Does anyone know the identity of the unnamed "REQUESTING STATE"? Or is that a secret also?
Because it seems by refusing to ID the requesting state the government is also necessarily refusing to ID the authority of which specific treaty they are relying on. Pointing out the Treaty would tend to ID the requesting state (in so far as it would be a signatory)
I don't think you can rely on a treaty if you don't want to identify it to the court. that is just my hunch. Justice is called Justice for a reason.
Do you "use" a fabric softener sheet when you look at it? I don't think so. It isn't defined, but it's pretty much common usage.
I don't know. Do you "use" an LCD display when you put it in a dryer? Do you "use" fabric softener when you put it inside your shoe and walk around on it? maybe.. kindof... it would probably bestoy some properties on your foot. Is *that* the use contemplated by the law?
Big difference between copyright and patent - copyright gives you the right to do certain things (the ones you listed) - patent gives you no right to do anything - all it gives you is the right to prevent others from selling, using, etc. 35 USC 271(a) is kind of the corollary to 17 USC 106. "Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."
At the very minimum the rules of legal interpretation dictate that the term "use" is colored by its inclusion in a list:
"makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells"
So it would be usage which is somehow similar to "makes, offers to sell or sells".
I don't think the term "use" should change meaning depending on the specific invention, because the terms "makes, offers to sell or sells" have the same meaning in regards to any invention regardless of its nature.
The list seems to deal with the commercialization and production of the invention not merely the existence of the invention itself or doing stuff directly to the physical invention (once it exists).
I really doubt the patent holder has the right to dictate what the word "use" means. *that* would be a very novel concept in law. And violate just about every principle of justice.
I also don't see how when you buy an instance of the invention from a patent holder, that this sale implicitly bestoys the "authority" to "use" the invention. It doesn't bestoy the authority to sell or make or offer to sell the invention.
It is something which needs to be decided by the courts, but I suspect it will be decided in a way which encourages invention without discourage people from buying and "using" goods for fear of infringing on unknown patents. The court should not and probably will not put a duty on a consumer to perform meticulous legal research prior to "using" goods to avoid liability for the venders misrepresentations.
It is also interesting to note that the term "sell" has never been interpreted to imply that if you buy a patented item you don't have the authority to "sell" it to someone else.
It seems that "sell" has been colored by its inclusion in the list which includes the word "make".
If you buy a poloroid camera you can probably sell on E-bay without specific authorization (regardless of what the patent holder wants).
(subject to interpretation of the word "sell" and "use" and "offer to sell" by the courts.)
" In my area, we had a guy that raped a 6 year old girl get 2 years,"
Just curious.
Was it actually rape (which involves penetration) or was the indictment listed as "sexual assault"?
Up here everything from touching someones clothed breast to violent sodomy with a police baton is called sexual assault. There is no crime of "rape". Consequently as a result the word "rape" is frequently misapplied to practically any unlawful sexual act no matter what allegidly took place.
The only point I'm making is that I see accurate descriptions of unlawful acts being thrown away in favour of the more cynical (but more popular) fear mongering. It is certainly unjust (to the victim as well as the perp) to report that a non-rape sexual assault is a rape.
No doubt some "Law and Order" types would argue they are the same thing. The same people who call copyright infringement "piracy".
"proportionality" does not compare leaving people to die to writing bad cheques. It compares 1 instance of leaving someone to die with other instances of leaving someone to die. 1 rape with another rape. Presumably in your jurisdiction, writing bad cheques is taken to be a more serious offence than rape or leaving the victims of your driving accident to die.
This is the fault of law makers (who legislate minimum/maximum sentences) rather than the judiciary who compare like crimes with like crimes.
Just putting blaim where it belongs.
If law makers legislated a mandatory death sentence for writing bad cheques, it would not cause the punishment for rape to increase or decrease.
It would not be a failure of the justice system. It would be a failure of the political system.
Because in copyright langauge use is taken to mean copy, distribute, import, sell or lease or do anything else which is the exclusive right of the copyright holder and does not include "read" "burn" "eat" or anything else which is not an exclusive right of the copyright holder.
If the term "use" is interpretted very liberally in patent law, then you may commit patent infringement merely by "looking" at a patented invention without a license.
But then, I suppose that someone with your opinions puts more faith in platitutes like "might makes right" rather then any sort of bourgeois morality.
"might makes right". I reject that notion completely. Might has no weight in deciding the morality of a course of action.
However I also reject your notion that ownership of property, land or physical objects is absolute. The only thing you own absolutely is "yourself", your thoughts and your soul. Everything else is on loan.
The "people" can not STEAL anything from you (except your most personal possessions, which tend to tie directly to your very sense of human existance) any more than an emperor or Monarch can STEAL from you. Ownership has never been an absolute right except for the very elite few and democracy has made the population of that that group = 0.
I agree USA is not a "Democracy" by the classical definition. It is a republic. However by the POPULAR definition, (i.e. modern english usage) America is actually a democracy. And so are all the other republics worldwide that we call "democracy.
Your revelation that America is not technically a "democracy" is off topic.
In such a purported DEMOCRACY (albeit technically a republic), representatives are not morally empowered to do whatever the hell they please, and disregard their constituents. They are authorized and expected to obey and serve their constituents. And specifically they are expected to fulfill their campaign promises. At least any representative who dares to say that the US is a democracy. (lest they commit hypocracy.)
If the people want to "vote themselves bread and circuses out of the public purse" who are you to deny the people that. The public purse belongs to THEM. If the people after receiving their education are so stupid as to hurt themselves democratically then let them. The people should vote themselves a better education.
"Elections belong to the people. It is their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters." Abraham Lincoln
Before people voted for free bread and circuses I am sure they would vote for free healthcare and more education.
Presumably smart people are more persuasive than idiots. And smart people are more likely to convince one another of a particular course than idiots are of an idiotic course. There are also more likly to be disagreements amongst idiots as to what needs to be done since, there being so many idiotic courses one can adopt, an idiotic course is presumably random, where as a smart course is probably one of a small set of plausible choices. Smart people are more likely to function cohesively. Smart people can also exchange ideas more effectively since they now how to engage in dialogue and debate.
You have the right of free speech, free expression, and free association. Demonstrate to the people that they should NOT vote themselves "bread and circuses" as you say. You hold the people in contempt. Teach them. Lift them up instead of condeming them.
It is corporations and financial institutions (in general) who are quite happy to destroy the future for next quarter profits. People are not automatons. Elitist Corporations want the "people" to believe they are too stupid and unfit to manage their own affairs. Please proxy your vote to the management. thank you.
The people are not thieves when they redistribute property in America in any way that the people want. The RICH do not OWN America. It belongs to the "people". We encourage certain people to be wealthy because some imbalances actually encourages and spurs us all to ACTION.
But that doesn't mean the rich have absolute rights over their "property". Nor do employers OWN their employees or have a right to treat employees like animals or slaves. Even part time slaves. If you wont "rule" over your property like a benign dictator then screw you. The people ought to depose y
The money Congress stole is going to have to be repaid or else people are going to wake up and realize it's all been a big Ponzi scheme. You think Bush's Billionare Buddies are going to let him raise *their* taxes? You've gotta be kidding me. It's us -- the middle class who works for a living -- who are going to have to pay more taxes to cover the shortfall.
There are a lot fewer billionares than middle class. The middle class does have the power to redistribute the wealth of the rich. It is called DEMOCRACY.
Demand a higher standard of public education for ALL and watch democracy work.
The RICH need the poor and middle class to be educated only enough to do a trade and compete against each other for scraps. Demand that your kids get proper educations, including philosophy and history.
In a democracy if the poor and middle class had educations which included philosophy and history, you can be confident you will start to see some real equitable distributions of power and wealth emerging.
Democracy is failing only because people are so poorly educated they are not generally capable of seeing what is in their own best interests.
I keep hearing this argument that electronic voting machines should have a paper trail. Apart from the fact that it is meaningless (any programmer knows that the printout doesn't have to match the vote that was recorded internally) there is a more fundamental problem.
The paper may not match the vote recorded internally. But paper can't magically erase itself and re-record a different result. Paper is a write once read many media, and it can be physically shown to the voter. So paper is more reliable.
By adding a printer, you're conceding that the electronic voting machine may not innately be able to provide complete confidence in the result.
An electronic machine which basically works "by magic" can not give any person who understands this "magic" confidence. Anyone who knows anything about computers should be very uncomfortable with a computer dictating who won an election.
And for anyone else reading, who happens to be pro-electronic voting. I didn't use the term "magic" literally. It was a metaphorical usage. But if you want to press the issue. Can we prove that electronic voting machines don't literally work by magic?
Slashdot Mirror
As for "privacy" concerns... um there are none. You're in PUBLIC while at a PUBLIC SCHOOL.
Being in PUBLIC does not waive your rights as a human being.
Do you believe that teachers have the right to rape and murder their students, or take away their lunch money (but only while at Public school)?
The right to privacy did not suddenly begin to exist when we started to demarcate the earth into plots of land and assign ownership.
The right to "privacy" is a fundamental human right. It is not contingent on your private property.
You would seem to believe that you have MORE right to own a tract of land, than you have over your own body.
Your position that privacy rights do not exist in "public" is the same as taking the position that privacy rights do not exist at all. The vast majority of the human race owns NO PROPERTY and would thus be infringed.
You don't need to PAY anyone for the exclusive right to monitor and supervise your own person.
The only right you implicitly waive in a public area is the right to be noticed and seen by other people in that area (because they can't but help notice and see what is going on around them), so you can't possibly reasonably expect them to not notice and see you.
However there is also an implied exhange occuring. You can see and notice anyone else who is also present in that public area. This is fair.
Once you introduce security camera's and one way mirrors into the mix, you change the equation.
But we didn't automatically agree to such monitoring by virtue of the place being labeled "PUBLIC". Every place is morally public in respect of other people who are present in the same location.
The mere existence of surveilance technology does not make its usage moral. (any more than does the mere existance of military technology make it moral for me to kill people with it).
The "owner" of the land DOES NOT dictate what human rights people have.
If you follow me around without my consent, I would feel personally assaulted by you. I am no less assaulted because you do it with hidden cameras or tracking devices. And I am no less assaulted if you do it on PUBLIC property or in a shopping mall. You don't have a right to follow me around. And I do have a right to be left alone.
I would appreciate it, if you want to surrender your rights you don't presume to surrender mine as well.
I thought that the wonderbra example, was chosen, non-arbitrarily. It implied (to me) that the ability to skip sexual material was an especially important consumer right. The example seemed to imply that there was no innate right to skip commercial material unless the viewer objects on some specified basis (such as sexual content).
Thank you for clarifying your position.
Why must a commercial be sexually explicit to be objectionable?
You have basically conceded that a commercial in and of itself is something that you have no right to skip.
And up to three years in prison for camcordering a movie? THREE YEARS?! Guys spend less time in prison for rape!
It is clear that the public considers bringing a camcorder to the theatre to be a more heinous offence than rape. Rape only has 1 victim. But when you bring a camcorder to a theatre you are raping America.
Remember, you elected these people. Now sit down and shut up before the commercials start.
A bit of research and theory suggests that, while these patents are a big pain in the US, there might be a case for implementing them in developing countries, in order to reward entrepreneurs who find successful business models and practices.
Undeveloped countries are already being screwed over by patents held on inventions already invented in 1st world nations.
Many undeveloped nations would be better off not recognizing patents at all. Particularily patents on medicine.
By disregarding patents this would allow locals (of the undeveloped nation) to compete with much wealthier foreign corporations who not only have more money, but control all the patents.
Patents should not be allowed to hinder nations in achieving 1st world status.
Who created numbers? Who created mathematics? Language? Ideas cannot be owned. There is no such thing as "stealing" an idea, except in the ramblings of a few confused souls.
You are dead on correct with this. One of the central premises in math is that any mathematical theorem is true or false independantly of who discovers it or when it was discovered. Aliens can also discover the exact same mandelbrot set, or the exact same PI. It does not derive from any free choice.
These truths simply *are*.
IP laws a means to encourage discovery. IP laws do not exist to discourage a wrong, in the same way as a prohibition against murder is in law because murder is actually considered to be wrong.
sharing of ideas and copying ideas are actually considered to be good things. The monopoly is wrong.
The IP laws grant monopolies hopefully to encourage more invention than would otherwise take place. IF they do not encourage invention then they are simply creating monopolies (which are harmful).
You make good points, but the way things work today, when do you think the US would deem China standards "good enough" if it was profitable for them to keep sanctions in place?
I can only say when I think the US "ought" to deem Chinese standards "good enough". I can't tell you when a particular administration would "deem" chinese standards good enough.
However in order for any such tarriff to have any positive effect the law which creates the tarriff would probably need to have specific benchmarks in place which dictate when the tarriff will expire and how to modify the tarriff based on actual goals.
A tariff which simply says "7% on metalwork goods" without any connection to actual human rights, environmental or labour rights issues is not going to achieve any of those aims.
For example. A Tarriff could read "X% on all imports to be waived if mercury emissions are reduced to XXX", or "X% to be waived if the right to strike is granted to labour unions", "x% to be waved if women are granted the right to vote".
etc....
The law mandating the tariff should have built in rules for reducing or terminating it. Only that will encourage any specific action.
Also, Germany (for instance) has a lot better worker protection than the US, should the US govermnent encourage Germany to sanction the US?
German citizens should probably encourage their government to put tariffs on US imports until the US raises its standards to German standards. Presumably Germany would have even harsher standards against China than the US would.
The crux of the issue is: Who gets to decide which labor rights/human rights/workplace safety rules/whatever are aproppriate? Nations disagree on those issues! As I can see there is just one way ahead:
I say each nation should decide democratically what
ethics it wants to impose on corporations.
There is no need for agreement. China is not obligated to adhere to any American ethical standard. Likewise, American companies can go ahead and only give people 2 weeks of vacation, but if they want to import into Germany, then perhaps Germany would want to impose a tariff because German people believe 2 weeks vacation is unethically short, and they believe that 8 weeks is what is minimally necessary for human dignity.
Corporations either way are still allowed to compete by any means which are ethically neutral.
Different sanction regimes should be controlled on the international level. If Norway thinks that Spain is subsidizing their ship production industry (they are, btw, just like everyone else), they should NOT call down sanctions on their beliefs alone.
If the people of Norway believe that subsidizing ship production is immoral then they are within their rights to put tariffs against countries which subsidize ship production.
Then it would just be might makes right. Everyone could make up excuses for sanctioning whomever they wanted, but it would be the richer countries that won out in the end - this is not far from the status quo today.
If the tariffs were put into law on the basis of achieving specific goals, it would be up to the courts of that nation to decide whether another nation was in compliance or should still be subject to a tariff.
Instead,
an international UN panel should decide if a certain human rights trangression warranted sanctions, and EU courts should do the same with respect to trade subsidies inside Europe, and I suppose NAFTA or something could do it over in the Americas. The important thing is that we have a rule of law when deciding whether sanctions are warranted, not just invoke them on the basis of our own biased bellies.
I agree with the rule of law.
I don't presume that the UN is any more lawful than any other national courts. However in this case notional courts have a vested interest in interpretting their laws properly.
If the purpose of creating a tariff and
I was with you up to the point where you said if we impose tariffs on countries that don't uphold American labor and environmental standards, the corporations and low-cost countries would roll over and live with it.
I did not say low-cost countries would roll over and live with it. I said the CORPORATIONS would roll over and live with hiring american workers in america if that was the cheapest way to sell products to American consumers.
I am Canadian you self-rightous prick.
Get an education.
All of these things are luxuries that no nation can afford in the long term. The European economies are already bleeding jobs like mad due to labor becoming prohibitively expensive with their 35-hour work weeks and 6 weeks of yearly vacations, while companies stick around only because they get massive government subsidies.
When you say "companies stick around". What exactly are you referring to? The board of directors? The shareholders? Certainly *not* the workers who are the only ones who actually do anything.
Maybe companies will packup and take their natural resources with them? Take the land? You CANT take your property with you when you leave.
"As an economy advances, some regulation and taxation becomes necessary to improve the quality of the labor pool (since automation makes most unskilled labor worthless), maintain law and order, and prevent inefficiencies from market failures, but those should be kept at the barest efficient minimum for the economy to remain truly competitive."
I guess regulations to protect human rights are unimportant to you. Afterall the labour pool is "worthless". Just slabs of meat. ripened past their expiry date.
And as for competition, what do you mean? Competitive with what? The extraterrestrials?
Or do you mean competetive with corporations which abuse human rights? Those are the exact corporations we must do everything possible to insure are NOT competetive. And those are the corporations that tariffs must target.
Humans all over the earth have human rights. Not simply europeans and North Americans.
Any attempts at protectionism only make things worse, since imposing tariffs gets you matching tariffs from everyone else, and no modern nation's economy can survive having the world's markets closed to it (that's why embargoes are such a devastating punitive measure in world diplomacy). As big as our economy may be, the world's is bigger still, and we need it a lot more than it needs us.
No. Tariffs do not make things worse. Tariffs make it more difficult to do business with human rights abusers. We don't worry about the economic costs of blacklisting terrorist organizations. Why is doing business with human rights abusers so sacrosanct?
Moreover, you don't get matching tariffs from EVERYONE ELSE, only from the nations who choose to utilize human exploitation or destruction of the earth environment as a competetive strategy. Exactly the type of practice we OUTLAW at home. These are essentially ROGUE corporations who manufacture in third world countries to exploit cheap labour. They engage in what would be an illegal practice at home. Safety regulations and labour standards and environmental standards are not in place to save money or gain competetive advantage. They are there for ethical reasons.
Tariffs are simply a less extreme version of flat out embargoes (which you don't seem to be opposed to). Mild enough that democratic forces in that country will likely be able to compell compliance rather than so extreme as to crush democratic forces and encourage totalitarianism.
Moreoever.. tariffs prevent companies from simply packing up and leaving without requiring any subsidies. Seems to accomplish multiple purposes all with 1 fell swoop.
And the draw back is that corporations can't sell american products to malaysia or india or china as cheaply unless they fix their human rights abuses first? Sounds great. It makes human rights a profitable enterprise.
"What we really need to do is cut back on the frivolous regulations, break the unions, and prevent new ones from forming. Corporations are not our enemies, they are the hands that feed us, and biting them is highly inadviseable."
I like the master-dog analogy you use because it is exactly what corporatists want you to think. Human beings are DOGS and corporations are the MASTER.
Consumers FEED the corporations. And the consumers are human beings and the labour pool. And it is
Now why would I want to get my pay based on seniority rather than performance? I have several family members (father included) in construction unions and I don't see how the benefits would help in the technology sector. If anything, I'd see unionization as a sure way to move jobs out of the country even faster.
How do you measure "performance"?
As for Unionization moving jobs out of the country.
Environmental safety standards = sure way to move jobs out of the country.
Workplace safety standards = sure way to move jobs out of the country.
human (and worker) rights = sure way to move jobs out of the country.
abolishing child labour = sure way to move jobs out of the country.
Property Taxes = sure way to move jobs out of the country.
Corporate taxes = sure way to move job out of the country.
Public healthcare = sure way to move jobs out of the country.
paid lunchtime and bathroom breaks = sure way to move jobs out of the country.
minimum living wage = sure way to move jobs out of the country.
compensation for workplace injuries = sure way to move jobs out of the country.
What can we do to insure jobs stay in the country?
Encourage or compell all nations in the world to have the same (or higher) standards as America.
Dropping the standards locally is what corporations would like because corporations have no interests in human life or happiness.
Don't believe the hype. American consumers still have a lot of spending power. Once that spending power is gone, then absolutely nothing except dropping all standards will ever get jobs back into the country. Prior to that time, you can keep jobs in country by imposing tarrifs on all countries which fail to live up to "american standards" of decency and employee/human rights and environmental protection. Corporations still want to sell stuff to Americans. And if necessary they will hold their noses and manufacture things here if that is the most profitable way to do business here.
If china was to suddenly comply with all american standards including free speech, labour unions, workplace safety conditions and human rights. Do you think it would be so cheap to do business in china?
For that matter.... do you think so many people would flee china and risk their lives packing themselves into shipping containers for the dream of living as an illegal alien in the USA.
Tarrifs on china and other countries which do not meet American human rights and environmental standards will have the effect of raising the standards abroad until corporations will have no where left to exploit labour or the environment unfairly. And then it would not seem so difficult to compete.
We are competing against the total exploitation of human life. How can you compete against that? Will you sacrifice your life and the lives of your family just so that your boss (for those of you who work for an outsourcing company) can make more profit?
Throwing away the right to unionize isn't going to stop outsourcing. Only a relative equalization of standards between nations. You can equalize it high, or equalize it low. Don't let the corporations choose.
Don't forget the plethora of lame video games which are over priced, overhyped and aren't fun.
Trouble is that over the last four years in particular, any moral justification that the U.S. has had for claiming the moral high ground has been gradually eroded by its actions.
you forget the most important moral justification of all.
God wants George W. Bush to be President.
Don't talk about that other stuff, it is unpatriotic and you are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
Didn't you pay attention? America is bringing freedom to Iraq.
freedom
forget WMD.. we dont use that anymore.. now we say freedom.
Freedom is on the March!
"What kind of moron wrote this? CNN isn't called the Clinton News Network (ie, left wing) for nothing."
You are on to something there. I follow you.
"It's fairly typical of most media outlets, they cater to the lowest-common dominator of public person because they are the consumers for their product and thus generate the largest revenue. "
It is the "MOST" common denominator which generates the most revenue.
Lowest common demoninator is a term you nicked from your grade 7 math class. "Lowest" does not imply "most".
While taking a word which means something in 1 context and twisting it into a completely unrelated and non-applicable usage has widely been recognized as a completely valid and authoritative method of argument (amongst neoconservatives), it would still prove you wrong because the "lowest" common denominator you are denigrating voted for Bush.
Which by your logic would mean CNN should be called the "Bush News Network".
And Bush, if you don't know begins with a "B", dipshit.
"Behind closed doors and within the accounting offices of these large businesses though, you can bet they're thankful for tax breaks the right-wing stands for."
In fact... these media outlets are SO thankful, that they have a great interest in seeing the right wing administration which gives them these tax breaks (at the expense of future generations of middle class workers) they would do everything in their power to endanger the status quo by presenting leftist news coverage.
Because... behind closed doors... these media conglomerates (which I suppose you also think are controlled by Jewish athiests).. actually want to pay more taxes... wait.. that is a contradiction.. how about this:
Because the owners of corporate media conglomerates are all bleeding heart socialists. How else do you think they got so f*cking rich?
that doesn't work either...
lets. see.... I know. The corporate media conglomerates are right wing media outlets and actually spin the news to the right.
That makes sense.
They only appear left to neoconservatives because once in a while, rarely, they actually report on factual events. And facts, as everyone knows, are the inventions of the left.
The Right doesn't needs "facts" when it has "faith".
"The same is true regarding celebreties, vocally they're mostly left-wing liberals (coincides with their pampered lifestyle and popularity with the masses), but secretly they're happy about any tax relief the right-wing can afford them."
I think you mean "secretly they're happy about any tax cut that the US government can't afford, but the Right Wing can borrow and bill to future generations of tax payers (most of whome will continue to be middle class working stiffs)".
Since we are apparently in the mood to reveal the secret thoughts of third parties (who haven't told us, but being self-righteous pricks we will claim to know things we can not possibly know), I'll let you in on another "secret".
Secretly neoconservatives know that they are evil liers, but they are so good at lying they have fallen for their own deceit.
ohh... it wan't a secret?
I must be watching too much Clinton News. I should probably start thinking for a change.
Identifying the treaty involved is likely to narrow the other state involved down to one.
that is exactly my point.
I find it very disturbing that the government would have the nerve to rely on the authority of a legal document which they will not disclose to the court.
If the court accepts that then the government is free to rely on the authority of non-existant laws, and the supremacy of law goes straight out the window.
Each MLAT is a seperate treaty, and the language is not identical. The applicant has no way to challenge the claims of the government in regards to the MLAT if the government wont identify MLAT being relied upon.
Yes, it's clear that you don't believe in private property rights.
Why do you?
It seems that you take the "RIGHT" of private property for granted. Do you have a moral reason for this?
You aren't BORN with private property and you can't take it with you when you die. Neither did God give you any private property.
So please tell me, how exactly you reason that private property is some form of inalienable right?
When a group comes and takes your personal wealth and possesions using the threat of imprisonment or death, most of the rest of us in the english speaking world [call] that stealing.
Your statement presumes that the the wealth and possessions belongs to you. And it is not you who are simply trying to withhold the wealth and possessions which ought to be distributed in such a way as to bring maximum good overall. The question is "who owns the property?"
It doesn't make any difference what it is that the people stealing have decided that they "deserve" the product of your labor more than you do.
You have now introduced an interesting issue. You now seem to be backing down from your previous position and are now taking the position, that private property rights exist, but are limited to property that is a product of your personal labour.
Was that intentional?
If not, then then lets make your analogy a little bit more accurate. And lets drop the value loaded terms. You should have said:
"It doesn't make any difference that you and majority disagree who should use the property."
As you are probably aware that the vast majority of wealth has been inherited and is not the product of any living person's labour. Moreover the vast majority of wealth is in real property and is not the product of any persons labour PAST OR PRESENT. It is land or natural resources. The EARTH is not the product of your labour.
I say it does make a difference what moral issues surround the usage or "hoarding" of property, and you ought to start putting forward an actual argument as to why your own personal decisions are more important than the interests of the whole if you want to convince anyone that private property rights 1) exist and 2) are more important than the right to life, liberty, the and pursuit of happiness (and avoidance of misery).
Although you claim to reject the "might makes right" philosophy, the only reason your group can steal from minorities is because their numbers give them might. They have NO moral right to steal.
No one has a moral right to "steal", because "stealing" is the taking away of property from another without color of right.
On the otherhand you can't be guilty of stealing something you have a right to take.
Taking what you have a RIGHT to take, is NOT STEALING.
I measure morality using the utilitarian principle. Increasing the overall happiness (and likewise decreasing misery) is good, decreasing overall happiness (or increasing overall misery) is bad.
I never argued that the majorty is physically capable of taking property you have. Perhaps it can't. Perhaps you are better armed.
The elite minorty would like to convince democrats (I mean real ones, not simply members of the right of centre political party), that "might makes right", or to spin our position to that of "might makes right". Bullshit! Not once did I say that the majority can overpower you.
If the overall happiness is increased by redistribution of wealth IT OUGHT TO BE DONE, and it doesn't matter if you own all the all the weapons and military expertise and you could wipe out the majorty with a blink of an eye. Your wealth ought to be redistributed if it is in the greater good to do so.
I put the question to you. Why should you be permitted to dictate what is to be done with certain property.
Even if you are superman and invincible, you ought to redistribute your wealth if it is "Good" to do so. "M
It is sad that in the United States you apparently need special standing to request the unsealing of information for a warrant/subpoena.
In Canada, the PUBLIC is considered to have an interest every time the STATE uses its power to seize something via a warrant/subpoena and any member of the public can request the information be unsealed and has standing to do so.
On a similar theme, the public has the right to order transcripts of court proceedings for the same reason.
The process of Justice is considered to be a matter of public interest. Not simply a private matter between the state and whoever the state is screwing over.
Their argument about the MLAT treaty is persuasive however. It seems to contradict their argument about terrorism however.
Either the seizure was according to the a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) and was therefore done on behalf of another country, or it was at the behest of US authorities to protect american national security.
Does anyone know the identity of the unnamed "REQUESTING STATE"? Or is that a secret also?
Because it seems by refusing to ID the requesting state the government is also necessarily refusing to ID the authority of which specific treaty they are relying on. Pointing out the Treaty would tend to ID the requesting state (in so far as it would be a signatory)
I don't think you can rely on a treaty if you don't want to identify it to the court. that is just my hunch. Justice is called Justice for a reason.
Do you "use" a fabric softener sheet when you look at it? I don't think so. It isn't defined, but it's pretty much common usage.
I don't know. Do you "use" an LCD display when you put it in a dryer? Do you "use" fabric softener when you put it inside your shoe and walk around on it? maybe.. kindof... it would probably bestoy some properties on your foot. Is *that* the use contemplated by the law?
Big difference between copyright and patent - copyright gives you the right to do certain things (the ones you listed) - patent gives you no right to do anything - all it gives you is the right to prevent others from selling, using, etc. 35 USC 271(a) is kind of the corollary to 17 USC 106. "Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent."
At the very minimum the rules of legal interpretation dictate that the term "use" is colored by its inclusion in a list:
"makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells"
So it would be usage which is somehow similar to "makes, offers to sell or sells".
I don't think the term "use" should change meaning depending on the specific invention, because the terms "makes, offers to sell or sells" have the same meaning in regards to any invention regardless of its nature.
The list seems to deal with the commercialization and production of the invention not merely the existence of the invention itself or doing stuff directly to the physical invention (once it exists).
I really doubt the patent holder has the right to dictate what the word "use" means. *that* would be a very novel concept in law. And violate just about every principle of justice.
I also don't see how when you buy an instance of the invention from a patent holder, that this sale implicitly bestoys the "authority" to "use" the invention. It doesn't bestoy the authority to sell or make or offer to sell the invention.
It is something which needs to be decided by the courts, but I suspect it will be decided in a way which encourages invention without discourage people from buying and "using" goods for fear of infringing on unknown patents. The court should not and probably will not put a duty on a consumer to perform meticulous legal research prior to "using" goods to avoid liability for the venders misrepresentations.
It is also interesting to note that the term "sell" has never been interpreted to imply that if you buy a patented item you don't have the authority to "sell" it to someone else.
It seems that "sell" has been colored by its inclusion in the list which includes the word "make".
If you buy a poloroid camera you can probably sell on E-bay without specific authorization (regardless of what the patent holder wants).
(subject to interpretation of the word "sell" and "use" and "offer to sell" by the courts.)
" In my area, we had a guy that raped a 6 year old girl get 2 years,"
Just curious.
Was it actually rape (which involves penetration) or was the indictment listed as "sexual assault"?
Up here everything from touching someones clothed breast to violent sodomy with a police baton is called sexual assault. There is no crime of "rape". Consequently as a result the word "rape" is frequently misapplied to practically any unlawful sexual act no matter what allegidly took place.
The only point I'm making is that I see accurate descriptions of unlawful acts being thrown away in favour of the more cynical (but more popular) fear mongering. It is certainly unjust (to the victim as well as the perp) to report that a non-rape sexual assault is a rape.
No doubt some "Law and Order" types would argue they are the same thing. The same people who call copyright infringement "piracy".
"proportionality" does not compare leaving people to die to writing bad cheques. It compares 1 instance of leaving someone to die with other instances of leaving someone to die. 1 rape with another rape. Presumably in your jurisdiction, writing bad cheques is taken to be a more serious offence than rape or leaving the victims of your driving accident to die.
This is the fault of law makers (who legislate minimum/maximum sentences) rather than the judiciary who compare like crimes with like crimes.
Just putting blaim where it belongs.
If law makers legislated a mandatory death sentence for writing bad cheques, it would not cause the punishment for rape to increase or decrease.
It would not be a failure of the justice system. It would be a failure of the political system.
What does the word use mean in patent language?
Because in copyright langauge use is taken to mean copy, distribute, import, sell or lease or do anything else which is the exclusive right of the copyright holder and does not include "read" "burn" "eat" or anything else which is not an exclusive right of the copyright holder.
If the term "use" is interpretted very liberally in patent law, then you may commit patent infringement merely by "looking" at a patented invention without a license.
But then, I suppose that someone with your opinions puts more faith in platitutes like "might makes right" rather then any sort of bourgeois morality.
"might makes right". I reject that notion completely. Might has no weight in deciding the morality of a course of action.
However I also reject your notion that ownership of property, land or physical objects is absolute. The only thing you own absolutely is "yourself", your thoughts and your soul. Everything else is on loan.
The "people" can not STEAL anything from you (except your most personal possessions, which tend to tie directly to your very sense of human existance) any more than an emperor or Monarch can STEAL from you. Ownership has never been an absolute right except for the very elite few and democracy has made the population of that that group = 0.
I agree USA is not a "Democracy" by the classical definition. It is a republic. However by the POPULAR definition, (i.e. modern english usage) America is actually a democracy. And so are all the other republics worldwide that we call "democracy.
Your revelation that America is not technically a "democracy" is off topic.
In such a purported DEMOCRACY (albeit technically a republic), representatives are not morally empowered to do whatever the hell they please, and disregard their constituents. They are authorized and expected to obey and serve their constituents. And specifically they are expected to fulfill their campaign promises.
At least any representative who dares to say that the US is a democracy. (lest they commit hypocracy.)
If the people want to "vote themselves bread and circuses out of the public purse" who are you to deny the people that. The public purse belongs to THEM. If the people after receiving their education are so stupid as to hurt themselves democratically then let them. The people should vote themselves a better education.
"Elections belong to the people. It is their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters."
Abraham Lincoln
Before people voted for free bread and circuses I am sure they would vote for free healthcare and more education.
Presumably smart people are more persuasive than idiots. And smart people are more likely to convince one another of a particular course than idiots are of an idiotic course. There are also more likly to be disagreements amongst idiots as to what needs to be done since, there being so many idiotic courses one can adopt, an idiotic course is presumably random, where as a smart course is probably one of a small set of plausible choices. Smart people are more likely to function cohesively. Smart people can also exchange ideas more effectively since they now how to engage in dialogue and debate.
You have the right of free speech, free expression, and free association. Demonstrate to the people that they should NOT vote themselves "bread and circuses" as you say. You hold the people in contempt. Teach them. Lift them up instead of condeming them.
It is corporations and financial institutions (in general) who are quite happy to destroy the future for next quarter profits. People are not automatons. Elitist Corporations want the "people" to believe they are too stupid and unfit to manage their own affairs. Please proxy your vote to the management. thank you.
The people are not thieves when they redistribute property in America in any way that the people want. The RICH do not OWN America. It belongs to the "people". We encourage certain people to be wealthy because some imbalances actually encourages and spurs us all to ACTION.
But that doesn't mean the rich have absolute rights over their "property". Nor do employers OWN their employees or have a right to treat employees like animals or slaves. Even part time slaves. If you wont "rule" over your property like a benign dictator then screw you. The people ought to depose y
Canada.
The money Congress stole is going to have to be repaid or else people are going to wake up and realize it's all been a big Ponzi scheme. You think Bush's Billionare Buddies are going to let him raise *their* taxes? You've gotta be kidding me. It's us -- the middle class who works for a living -- who are going to have to pay more taxes to cover the shortfall.
There are a lot fewer billionares than middle class. The middle class does have the power to redistribute the wealth of the rich. It is called DEMOCRACY.
Demand a higher standard of public education for ALL and watch democracy work.
The RICH need the poor and middle class to be educated only enough to do a trade and compete against each other for scraps. Demand that your kids get proper educations, including philosophy and history.
In a democracy if the poor and middle class had educations which included philosophy and history, you can be confident you will start to see some real equitable distributions of power and wealth emerging.
Democracy is failing only because people are so poorly educated they are not generally capable of seeing what is in their own best interests.
Democracy can work if the people want it to.
There were a ton of groups ready to swoop in and challenge result they didnt agree with.
That's the true story here. These types of actions are reprehensible.
damn those non-believers!
They will burn and hell and then they will know that electronic voting is great!
I keep hearing this argument that electronic voting machines should have a paper trail. Apart from the fact that it is meaningless (any programmer knows that the printout doesn't have to match the vote that was recorded internally) there is a more fundamental problem.
The paper may not match the vote recorded internally. But paper can't magically erase itself and re-record a different result. Paper is a write once read many media, and it can be physically shown to the voter. So paper is more reliable.
By adding a printer, you're conceding that the electronic voting machine may not innately be able to provide complete confidence in the result.
An electronic machine which basically works "by magic" can not give any person who understands this "magic" confidence. Anyone who knows anything about computers should be very uncomfortable with a computer dictating who won an election.
And for anyone else reading, who happens to be pro-electronic voting. I didn't use the term "magic" literally. It was a metaphorical usage. But if you want to press the issue. Can we prove that electronic voting machines don't literally work by magic?