What this means is that "right" and "left" are meaningless labels. An intelligent person's view depends on the issue not on an ideological blue- print where the answer is known before the question is raised.
After following the discussion, I offer three points for consideration: 1) economics is fundamentally political because it deals with the allocation of scarce goods. In earlier times it's study was called "political economy". Moreover it is not a science as it deals with the study of human beviour.
2) the "debate", such as it is, over offshore drilling misses the point. The problem is not to increase supply, but to reduce demand. The American public is not quite ready to handle this.
3) education tends to make one "liberal" in the sense that it makes one away of the complexities of the world and the futility of simple black and white solutions. The political fissures in America today stem not from liberalism or conservatism (however they may be defined) but from the enduring frontier myth of the individual vs the rights and responsibilities of the community. In that sense, libertarians are selfish, socialists value community or collective society over the individual. Most Americans' political and religious views are hopelessly confused along these two poles.
It's all about culture. Cultures that can adapt survive and flourish, those that can't fail. Environments change so must cultures to succeed. Cultural competition is the norm else stagnation. European culture is in the ascendancy because it is being emulated by everyone else who wants the material and social values it provides. Note to North American native peoples: join it through assimilation or sink into welfare-induced poverty, depression, and irrelevance.
You seem to have forgotten, or never knew, your constitutional history. All is open to interpretation and change.
If the US Congress passed a law signed by the President, and the US Supreme Court ruled it "constitutional", then yes, you could have a dictatorship.
My liberties were well in place long before the US constitution was conceived. The constitution simply codified the long-standing rights of free-born Englishmen. It said nothing about slaves, women, and abortion to mention just a few post-constitution interpretations.
"You do realize that most of these rules are at most rewordings and formalizations of what was already policy in 2000?"
Perhaps, but why then was it necessary to bring in such legislation as FISA and the like? Are you suggesting these were unnecessary, insignificant, and that they changed nothing? Having an ultimate power to confiscate and arrest and using that power appropriately and with little judicial or institutional restraint are two very different things. Necessary curbs on the exercise of power by the security establishment have been greatly loosened. This is very dangerous to Americans: terrorists don't care or are rarely impacted.
All this demonstrates is that the terms "republican" and "democrat" have no explanatory significance. Both behave in terms of the values and political priorities of their times. This kind of labelling has no value at all.
"ALL big government is wasteful, inefficient, deceitful and corrupt." Yes, but
"ALL big Corporations are wasteful, inefficient, deceitful and corrupt."
Probably one of the most wasteful. inefficient and deceitful entities in the US is the American military. I could add corrupt but you get the point.
And check-out your local hospital, college, or police station.
This you cannot change; it is a feature of large human organisations. What you can change is what they do or not do: Policy, programs, oversight and accountability. If your representatives are not doing the job get rid of them. Start by voting on issues, real issues, not media hype and personality.
You don't seem to understand the differences between paying (taxes) for the privilege of being a citizen and thereby assuming your obligations and responsibilities to the country and community, and having your civil rights taken away. No one living in a society has the right not to pay taxes. Society provides you with the methods and means to make money, you must pay your dues back to society.
You "constitutional literalists" are no different than 'biblical literalists (fundamentalists)", except perhaps you can do more harm. Society through the political processes determines its laws, not a piece of paper, itself a political compromise, written a couple of hundred years ago. Life moves on as do commonly accepted principles, values, and laws. If the "paper" gets in the way it is reinterpreted to fit, or as a last resort, amended. Simple. A written constitution simply retards the achievement of popular will, it doesn't stop it.
The first problem is that "our opinions" are mostly uninformed crap, and if "respected" would do more harm than good. The second problem is that "we" elect politicians who are as stupid as "we" are.
Sig: Anyone who wants to be an elected politician should be immediately disqualified from seeking public office.
The "offence" didn't take place in the US therefore he should not be tried in the US. I know this is contrary to recent international legal trends e.g. sex tourism, but it offends my sense of justice and goes contrary to centuries of legal tradition.
Hey, give the guy a break: he did get laid. That's better than most geeks on/. get. Now there will be a rush of geeks to China clutching their blackberrys.
You don't do research unless there are things to "worry" about. These people are pointing out the need for research because we don't know how these materials will act in the body. Sounds sensible to me.
The Democratic and Republican parties are essentially the same; and the US provides a model for the future evolution to "democracy" in China.
Imagine that the Chinese communist party decides to split introducing a two party system. The bureaucrats suggest calling the parties "Communist Party One" and "Communist Party Two". But more creative minds prevail and the parties are named "Democratic" and "Republican".
Now the members have to decide which party they will join. Not too complicated: they look to what the powerful people in their communities choose and go with that. These "powerful people", and those who would like to become powerful, will choose whatever party will provide or expand their power in their respective communities. If you want to succeed in politics or business you go with the local power structure. Ideology is not an issue: both parties have the same core beliefs, myths and prejudices, and represent the power elite. They provide a vehicle for individuals in the elite to obtain power and influence.
Not much different to choosing the church you will attend. If you do business in a small town, or want to get elected, then you will go to the church your customers go to. Theology is not an issue.
Slashdot Mirror
When you outlaw guns only the police and the outlaws have guns. Easy to identify and deal with the bad guys. Support your police: ban handguns.
What this means is that "right" and "left" are meaningless labels. An intelligent person's view depends on the issue not on an ideological blue- print where the answer is known before the question is raised.
After following the discussion, I offer three points for consideration:
1) economics is fundamentally political because it deals with the allocation of scarce goods. In earlier times it's study was called "political economy". Moreover it is not a science as it deals with the study of human beviour.
2) the "debate", such as it is, over offshore drilling misses the point. The problem is not to increase supply, but to reduce demand. The American public is not quite ready to handle this.
3) education tends to make one "liberal" in the sense that it makes one away of the complexities of the world and the futility of simple black and white solutions. The political fissures in America today stem not from liberalism or conservatism (however they may be defined) but from the enduring frontier myth of the individual vs the rights and responsibilities of the community. In that sense, libertarians are selfish, socialists value community or collective society over the individual. Most Americans' political and religious views are hopelessly confused along these two poles.
Perfidious Albion.
Oh shit, where is my musket? Did I renew my subscription to the militia?
It's all about culture. Cultures that can adapt survive and flourish, those that can't fail. Environments change so must cultures to succeed. Cultural competition is the norm else stagnation. European culture is in the ascendancy because it is being emulated by everyone else who wants the material and social values it provides. Note to North American native peoples: join it through assimilation or sink into welfare-induced poverty, depression, and irrelevance.
You seem to have forgotten, or never knew, your constitutional history. All is open to interpretation and change.
If the US Congress passed a law signed by the President, and the US Supreme Court ruled it "constitutional", then yes, you could have a dictatorship.
My liberties were well in place long before the US constitution was conceived. The constitution simply codified the long-standing rights of free-born Englishmen. It said nothing about slaves, women, and abortion to mention just a few post-constitution interpretations.
"You do realize that most of these rules are at most rewordings and formalizations of what was already policy in 2000?"
Perhaps, but why then was it necessary to bring in such legislation as FISA and the like? Are you suggesting these were unnecessary, insignificant, and that they changed nothing? Having an ultimate power to confiscate and arrest and using that power appropriately and with little judicial or institutional restraint are two very different things. Necessary curbs on the exercise of power by the security establishment have been greatly loosened. This is very dangerous to Americans: terrorists don't care or are rarely impacted.
Then you must fuck yourself because "you" get the government you deserve. If people didn't vote for them they wouldn't be elected. Simple.
All this demonstrates is that the terms "republican" and "democrat" have no explanatory significance. Both behave in terms of the values and political priorities of their times. This kind of labelling has no value at all.
"ALL big government is wasteful, inefficient, deceitful and corrupt."
Yes, but
"ALL big Corporations are wasteful, inefficient, deceitful and corrupt."
Probably one of the most wasteful. inefficient and deceitful entities in the US is the American military. I could add corrupt but you get the point.
And check-out your local hospital, college, or police station.
This you cannot change; it is a feature of large human organisations. What you can change is what they do or not do: Policy, programs, oversight and accountability. If your representatives are not doing the job get rid of them. Start by voting on issues, real issues, not media hype and personality.
You don't seem to understand the differences between paying (taxes) for the privilege of being a citizen and thereby assuming your obligations and responsibilities to the country and community, and having your civil rights taken away. No one living in a society has the right not to pay taxes. Society provides you with the methods and means to make money, you must pay your dues back to society.
You are naive.
At the border:
"I am an Islamic terrorist and I want to enter the US"
"Sorry Sir, I must refuse you entry. Please go back where you came from."
Give me a break. They can arrest anyone they like at the border because you are on US soil.
You "constitutional literalists" are no different than 'biblical literalists (fundamentalists)", except perhaps you can do more harm. Society through the political processes determines its laws, not a piece of paper, itself a political compromise, written a couple of hundred years ago. Life moves on as do commonly accepted principles, values, and laws. If the "paper" gets in the way it is reinterpreted to fit, or as a last resort, amended. Simple. A written constitution simply retards the achievement of popular will, it doesn't stop it.
Just like the US stood-by between 1939 and 1941 while Hitler ravaged Europe?
If you still have to "fully formulate your opinion of Bush" then I have to pity you. What does he have to do? Eat babies?
I thought this argument had been put to rest with the Nuremburg war crimes trials. "I was only following orders" is not a legitimate defense.
The first problem is that "our opinions" are mostly uninformed crap, and if "respected" would do more harm than good. The second problem is that "we" elect politicians who are as stupid as "we" are.
Sig: Anyone who wants to be an elected politician should be immediately disqualified from seeking public office.
Scientists land in Washington in search for intelligent life in the White House. Mars considered better prospect.
The "offence" didn't take place in the US therefore he should not be tried in the US. I know this is contrary to recent international legal trends e.g. sex tourism, but it offends my sense of justice and goes contrary to centuries of legal tradition.
Hey, give the guy a break: he did get laid. That's better than most geeks on /. get. Now there will be a rush of geeks to China clutching their blackberrys.
Maybe a thief is just a thief.
"If you have no reasonable way to know you can't be liable for not knowing something."
Define "reasonable". Wilfull ignorance is not a legal defense anywhere.
Also, the courts have not said the last word on the luxury goods case. I am sure the recent decision will be appealed.
The voice of ignorance.
You don't do research unless there are things to "worry" about. These people are pointing out the need for research because we don't know how these materials will act in the body. Sounds sensible to me.
The Democratic and Republican parties are essentially the same; and the US provides a model for the future evolution to "democracy" in China.
Imagine that the Chinese communist party decides to split introducing a two party system. The bureaucrats suggest calling the parties "Communist Party One" and "Communist Party Two". But more creative minds prevail and the parties are named "Democratic" and "Republican".
Now the members have to decide which party they will join. Not too complicated: they look to what the powerful people in their communities choose and go with that. These "powerful people", and those who would like to become powerful, will choose whatever party will provide or expand their power in their respective communities. If you want to succeed in politics or business you go with the local power structure. Ideology is not an issue: both parties have the same core beliefs, myths and prejudices, and represent the power elite. They provide a vehicle for individuals in the elite to obtain power and influence.
Not much different to choosing the church you will attend. If you do business in a small town, or want to get elected, then you will go to the church your customers go to. Theology is not an issue.
The US, a model for democracy.