I agree that we're not living in a full fledged tyranny. However, don't you think that the government has given itself all of the powers it needs to implement tyranny under the veil of law and order?
Given the "indefinite detention" provisions of the 2012 NDAA, I can easily imagine a scenario where people participating in an angry demonstration or a food riot are labeled "terrorists" and arrested en masse.
Aren't they also amassing the necessary weapons and equipment? Seriously, why did the Ministry of Homeland Security purchase 2700 mine-resistant armored vehicles, 1.6B rounds of hollow point ammo and at least 7000 military rifles? What are they preparing for? I can only imagine that they are gearing up for some sort of widespread civil unrest.
"If we are to have a government, its primary job should be for providing for the safety of its citizens..."
I could not disagree more. The job of government should be protecting the LIBERTY of its citizens from those who would infringe upon it. For example, a foreign invader.
A police state with ubiquitous surveillance, an army of drones, armed soldiers walking the streets, random checkpoints, "stop and frisk" powers and a population too terrified to step out of line in the slightest manner is nice and "safe".
No race of people and no culture is without its flaws. Maybe the half-breeds got the worst of everything? Rapacious greed of the Western European race/culture with the short-sightedness of those that evolved in equatorial climates? Snake eyes of the gene pool.
For many years, Microsoft attempted to be a-political. Government recognized that they weren't contributing their fair share of protection money (aka campaign contributions) and decided to rough them up a bit. That's all. Just business as usual in the giant extortion racket known as the U.S. federal government.
99% of the time, the so-called "press" is simply acting as the propaganda wing of the government. I think THAT is when they are acting inappropriately.
The First Amendment clearly elaborates the freedom of the press. The government can investigate leaks within the constraint of the law. They don't have and should not have the power to crack down on or intimidate the press as part of their war on whistle-blowers. The government commits CRIMES and tells LIES. They are not above the law and information should not be "classified" simply because it it embarrassing to the government. If a patriot in government decides to reveal info about government criminality and lying, the government shouldn't be able to attack the press for publishing the information.
What about the case of ATF smuggling guns to Mexican drug cartels? One of which was used to murder a U.S. border patrol agent. You can damned well bet that if one of us little people sold a gun to a member of the Mexican drug cartel and that gun was used to murder a U.S. agent, we'd be charged with a felony.
Where are the criminal charges against the ATF and Justic Dept. officials?
Warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens, torture, indefinite detention, war crimes, arbitrary assassinations, gun smuggling to drug cartels, facilitating financial fraud, etc. etc.
And who gets punished for these crimes? The whistle-blowers who reveal the criminal activity to the American people.
Government is a giant extortion racket with the same moral principles as organized crime.
Suppose you invented and patented a strain of a commercial crop that had unique properties. You sell seeds for this crop to a customer with a contract in which they agree not to re-plant or sell the seeds from the mature plants.
Then, you find people growing your particular strain of the crop and taking advantage of the unique properties for their own commercial gain. What do you think would be fair way of handling this in your statist utopia? Don't you think you should have some sort of recourse?
There are plenty of reasons to hate Monsanto, but that doesn't mean they NEVER have a legitimate tort claim.
"There is no one holding a gun to farmers heads saying they must use Roundup or Roundup Ready seeds."
Monsanto has done things to make it extremely difficult to not to use these seeds. Separating the seeds from plants requires special equipment. In the movie "Food Inc." there was a case where Monsanto successfully sued a guy who operated a business renting out this sort of equipment to farmers. They claimed he was facilitating criminal activity or something like that because his equipment was designed to help farmers save seeds.
Thank you for providing a comment from the front lines.
I heard about a recent study comparing test data from students across nations. One of the parts of the study asked students to assess how well they thought they had performed on various parts of the exam. One place where the USA led the world was the gap between self assessment and actual performance.
IMO, this is what happens when our schools focus on "self esteem" and give everyone a medal just for competing. They think they are inherently deserving of good outcomes for marginal effort.
Government basically OWNS the entire market for K-12 education! They also pour billions into so-called "higher education". Who do you think guarantees all those billions of dollars in student loans? Who do you think runs the STATE university system? What about all the grants and other BS that government uses to distort the market? Not to mention the various tomes of regulation imposed on the whole system.
Government and the Federal Reserve WRECK the housing and mortgage loan business and bail out the banks, but the statists blame the "free market". Government destroys the healthcare system of the USA and once again "capitalism" takes the criticism from the government worshiping leftists. Now the problems in education (which is almost EXCLUSIVELY a government system) are the fault of the free market too?
Government does a few things well, like bombing and killing massive numbers of people, incarcerating millions more, and coercing individual behavior through threat of violence.
They claim to have found evidence that "Math and reading ability at age 7 may be linked with socioeconomic status several decades later."
The article goes on to say: "more evidence that a strong early education is a huge factor in helping children escape poverty."
How did they make that leap? Where's the evidence suggesting that "strong early education" is directly correlated with math and reading ability at age 7?
Were you around in 2001? First, we had 9/11. Then on 10/24 the House passed the USA Patriot Act 357-66. The Senate passed it 98-1 the next day, and on 10/26 it was signed into law. SIX WEEKS!
If you look at the size and scope of this bill and the bewildering number of changes it made to existing law, it's rather obvious that it had it ready and waiting long before 9/11/2001. Do you really need more evidence to demonstrate that there is a "conspiracy" to deprive U.S. citizens of their civil liberties?
"Plenty of countries operate just fine with strict gun control laws and with lower violent crime rates than the U.S."
Looking at another country and assuming that the U.S. could reduce violent crime simply by duplicating that country's gun control laws is the naive view.
The number of privately owned firearms in the USA is way up. Both the number of firearms owners and the number of concealed carry permit holders are at record highs. Meanwhile, violent crime rates, and even firearms-related crime rates are down. The Clinton gun ban expired in 2004, yet there has been no associated spike in violent crime or gun crime.
The most interesting and relevant case of a foreign country is Australia because we have a before/after view of gun confiscation.
", the public owning guns isn't going to cause any military on the planet to even blink"
An enemy with nukes that wanted to eradicate the population would obviously not be deterred by armed citizens.
Otherwise, it doesn't take a keen military mind to realize that attempting an invasion and occupation of a country with 80 million armed citizens would be suicidal.
Ammunition falls under the category of "arms". A court would strike down legislation enacting an ammo ban just as if it were a law affecting firearms. It would be silly for the government to argue otherwise because their own import/export regulations classify them as the same.
In the era of "cyber warfare" an information freedom issue might also be considered a "Right to keep and bear arms" issue.
A friend and I were having a discussion about this a while ago. If computer viruses, worms and even social media are now employed as weapons, wouldn't the government be prohibited from infringing on our right to possess electronics and software based on the Second Amendment?
"Private gun sales do not require ID, or background checks."
If you were selling a firearm, you'd be seriously DUMB not to ask the buyer for ID. It is illegal to sell a pistol to anyone that's not a resident of your state. It's also illegal to sell a rifle or shotgun to anyone under 18 or to sell a pistol to anyone under 21.
"...circumvent is the Federal background check, which you can just as easily bypass by buying at a gun show."
Wrong for the ten millionth time.
If you ever go to a gun show, you will see that the merchandise at all of the booths and tables is being sold by licensed dealers. They MUST perform a background check at the gun show in exactly the same manner as they would at their store or anywhere else.
You could circumvent the background check by purchasing from a private seller. If that's your intent, you'd be 100X better off looking in the local classified ads than wandering through the crowds at a gun show to find someone looking to do a private sale.
"NRA is largely a gun manufacturer's rights organization, more so than one representing the actual people that are members."
Did you know that NRA membership is not free? There are over 5 million "actual people" who are members. The willingness of those people to continue paying their membership dues is a CLEAR indication that the NRA's actions largely reflect the will of the membership.
I sometimes disagree with what they do, like when they decided to endorse Romney, but typically they are doing a good job of protecting our rights.
I would absolutely LOVE to have an organization which defended the 4th Amendment as successfully as the NRA has defended the 2nd.
The fact that it is technically possible, or even "easy", for someone to intercept and read an unencrypted communication in transit between two servers does NOT mean that the government should have the legal authority to do it.
It's no great technical challenge for them to open an envelope, listen to a phone call or even kick down your door and search your house either. That doesn't mean it should be LEGAL for the government to do this.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree that we're not living in a full fledged tyranny. However, don't you think that the government has given itself all of the powers it needs to implement tyranny under the veil of law and order?
Given the "indefinite detention" provisions of the 2012 NDAA, I can easily imagine a scenario where people participating in an angry demonstration or a food riot are labeled "terrorists" and arrested en masse.
Aren't they also amassing the necessary weapons and equipment? Seriously, why did the Ministry of Homeland Security purchase 2700 mine-resistant armored vehicles, 1.6B rounds of hollow point ammo and at least 7000 military rifles? What are they preparing for? I can only imagine that they are gearing up for some sort of widespread civil unrest.
"If we are to have a government, its primary job should be for providing for the safety of its citizens..."
I could not disagree more. The job of government should be protecting the LIBERTY of its citizens from those who would infringe upon it. For example, a foreign invader.
A police state with ubiquitous surveillance, an army of drones, armed soldiers walking the streets, random checkpoints, "stop and frisk" powers and a population too terrified to step out of line in the slightest manner is nice and "safe".
No race of people and no culture is without its flaws. Maybe the half-breeds got the worst of everything? Rapacious greed of the Western European race/culture with the short-sightedness of those that evolved in equatorial climates? Snake eyes of the gene pool.
How is a political party in the USA responsible for the actions of construction crews in Belize?
For many years, Microsoft attempted to be a-political. Government recognized that they weren't contributing their fair share of protection money (aka campaign contributions) and decided to rough them up a bit. That's all. Just business as usual in the giant extortion racket known as the U.S. federal government.
99% of the time, the so-called "press" is simply acting as the propaganda wing of the government. I think THAT is when they are acting inappropriately.
The First Amendment clearly elaborates the freedom of the press. The government can investigate leaks within the constraint of the law. They don't have and should not have the power to crack down on or intimidate the press as part of their war on whistle-blowers. The government commits CRIMES and tells LIES. They are not above the law and information should not be "classified" simply because it it embarrassing to the government. If a patriot in government decides to reveal info about government criminality and lying, the government shouldn't be able to attack the press for publishing the information.
What about the case of ATF smuggling guns to Mexican drug cartels? One of which was used to murder a U.S. border patrol agent. You can damned well bet that if one of us little people sold a gun to a member of the Mexican drug cartel and that gun was used to murder a U.S. agent, we'd be charged with a felony.
Where are the criminal charges against the ATF and Justic Dept. officials?
Warrantless surveillance of U.S. citizens, torture, indefinite detention, war crimes, arbitrary assassinations, gun smuggling to drug cartels, facilitating financial fraud, etc. etc.
And who gets punished for these crimes? The whistle-blowers who reveal the criminal activity to the American people.
Government is a giant extortion racket with the same moral principles as organized crime.
The major reason for super cheap corn is government subsidies to big agriculture. Then there's the ethanol subsidy/mandate as another handout.
Every time Ag subsidies come up we hear about the little farmer, when the beneficiaries are really a bunch of fat cats and corporations.
Suppose you invented and patented a strain of a commercial crop that had unique properties. You sell seeds for this crop to a customer with a contract in which they agree not to re-plant or sell the seeds from the mature plants.
Then, you find people growing your particular strain of the crop and taking advantage of the unique properties for their own commercial gain. What do you think would be fair way of handling this in your statist utopia? Don't you think you should have some sort of recourse?
There are plenty of reasons to hate Monsanto, but that doesn't mean they NEVER have a legitimate tort claim.
"There is no one holding a gun to farmers heads saying they must use Roundup or Roundup Ready seeds."
Monsanto has done things to make it extremely difficult to not to use these seeds. Separating the seeds from plants requires special equipment. In the movie "Food Inc." there was a case where Monsanto successfully sued a guy who operated a business renting out this sort of equipment to farmers. They claimed he was facilitating criminal activity or something like that because his equipment was designed to help farmers save seeds.
"If [Monsanto] wanted to be the sole producer, they shouldn't have been selling self-contained seed factories with every seed purchased."
Careful with that line of thinking. Monsanto owns a patent for "terminator gene" technology, so they could conceivably meet your demand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_use_restriction_technology
I think this would be much worse than the "Roundup Ready" patent protection.
Thank you for providing a comment from the front lines.
I heard about a recent study comparing test data from students across nations. One of the parts of the study asked students to assess how well they thought they had performed on various parts of the exam. One place where the USA led the world was the gap between self assessment and actual performance.
IMO, this is what happens when our schools focus on "self esteem" and give everyone a medal just for competing. They think they are inherently deserving of good outcomes for marginal effort.
Free market my AR$E !!!!
Government basically OWNS the entire market for K-12 education! They also pour billions into so-called "higher education". Who do you think guarantees all those billions of dollars in student loans? Who do you think runs the STATE university system? What about all the grants and other BS that government uses to distort the market? Not to mention the various tomes of regulation imposed on the whole system.
Government and the Federal Reserve WRECK the housing and mortgage loan business and bail out the banks, but the statists blame the "free market". Government destroys the healthcare system of the USA and once again "capitalism" takes the criticism from the government worshiping leftists. Now the problems in education (which is almost EXCLUSIVELY a government system) are the fault of the free market too?
Government does a few things well, like bombing and killing massive numbers of people, incarcerating millions more, and coercing individual behavior through threat of violence.
They claim to have found evidence that "Math and reading ability at age 7 may be linked with socioeconomic status several decades later."
The article goes on to say: "more evidence that a strong early education is a huge factor in helping children escape poverty."
How did they make that leap? Where's the evidence suggesting that "strong early education" is directly correlated with math and reading ability at age 7?
TV? Important? Nonsense! What we urgently need is the next round of hearings about performance enhancing drugs in professional sports!
Were you around in 2001? First, we had 9/11. Then on 10/24 the House passed the USA Patriot Act 357-66. The Senate passed it 98-1 the next day, and on 10/26 it was signed into law. SIX WEEKS!
If you look at the size and scope of this bill and the bewildering number of changes it made to existing law, it's rather obvious that it had it ready and waiting long before 9/11/2001. Do you really need more evidence to demonstrate that there is a "conspiracy" to deprive U.S. citizens of their civil liberties?
"Plenty of countries operate just fine with strict gun control laws and with lower violent crime rates than the U.S."
Looking at another country and assuming that the U.S. could reduce violent crime simply by duplicating that country's gun control laws is the naive view.
Check out this new report from PEW research:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware
The number of privately owned firearms in the USA is way up. Both the number of firearms owners and the number of concealed carry permit holders are at record highs. Meanwhile, violent crime rates, and even firearms-related crime rates are down. The Clinton gun ban expired in 2004, yet there has been no associated spike in violent crime or gun crime.
The most interesting and relevant case of a foreign country is Australia because we have a before/after view of gun confiscation.
", the public owning guns isn't going to cause any military on the planet to even blink"
An enemy with nukes that wanted to eradicate the population would obviously not be deterred by armed citizens.
Otherwise, it doesn't take a keen military mind to realize that attempting an invasion and occupation of a country with 80 million armed citizens would be suicidal.
"So, why not tighten up bullet control:"
Ammunition falls under the category of "arms". A court would strike down legislation enacting an ammo ban just as if it were a law affecting firearms.
It would be silly for the government to argue otherwise because their own import/export regulations classify them as the same.
In the era of "cyber warfare" an information freedom issue might also be considered a "Right to keep and bear arms" issue.
A friend and I were having a discussion about this a while ago. If computer viruses, worms and even social media are now employed as weapons, wouldn't the government be prohibited from infringing on our right to possess electronics and software based on the Second Amendment?
"Private gun sales do not require ID, or background checks."
If you were selling a firearm, you'd be seriously DUMB not to ask the buyer for ID. It is illegal to sell a pistol to anyone that's not a resident of your state. It's also illegal to sell a rifle or shotgun to anyone under 18 or to sell a pistol to anyone under 21.
"...circumvent is the Federal background check, which you can just as easily bypass by buying at a gun show."
Wrong for the ten millionth time.
If you ever go to a gun show, you will see that the merchandise at all of the booths and tables is being sold by licensed dealers. They MUST perform a background check at the gun show in exactly the same manner as they would at their store or anywhere else.
You could circumvent the background check by purchasing from a private seller. If that's your intent, you'd be 100X better off looking in the local classified ads than wandering through the crowds at a gun show to find someone looking to do a private sale.
"NRA is largely a gun manufacturer's rights organization, more so than one representing the actual people that are members."
Did you know that NRA membership is not free? There are over 5 million "actual people" who are members. The willingness of those people to continue paying their membership dues is a CLEAR indication that the NRA's actions largely reflect the will of the membership.
I sometimes disagree with what they do, like when they decided to endorse Romney, but typically they are doing a good job of protecting our rights.
I would absolutely LOVE to have an organization which defended the 4th Amendment as successfully as the NRA has defended the 2nd.
The fact that it is technically possible, or even "easy", for someone to intercept and read an unencrypted communication in transit between two servers does NOT mean that the government should have the legal authority to do it.
It's no great technical challenge for them to open an envelope, listen to a phone call or even kick down your door and search your house either. That doesn't mean it should be LEGAL for the government to do this.