The only thing that I can figure is that I've seen "NBA" over and over and fucking over in these comments because a handful of scrawny, alabaster nerds are bitter because when they tried out for their high school basketball teams they were alarmed to discover that for once they weren't getting a free pass.
Yeah, we get it. There are a few rich—even a few powerful—black Americans. Since no one ever said there aren't, can we get back to discussing:
1. Something that's relevant to the website we're on (not your shattered basketball dreams); 2. Something that's relevant to the article we're commenting on (not your shattered basketball dreams); 3. I don't know... maybe a multi-billion-dollar industry with thousands upon thousands of participants that is quite a bit more representative of the broader culture it comes from than an entertainment industry with a very tiny set of participants who are extraordinarily skilled and fit?
I don't even have to click that link to know that dictionary.reference.com is the final source for all sociological knowledge and insight, and that it's impossible that there could be more to understand than a few simplistic and unprovocative definitions about a centuries-old social phenomenon that has swept whole nations into war, civil unrest, mass murder and genocide. Obviously only some individuals' personal feelings about something as vague as "race" could accomplish these social events. And since I trust your source as the final one for all sociological knowledge and insight—and therefore that your assertion that racism requires intent is correct—I can know that, for instance, segregation of buses in Montgomery, Alabama, was neither racist nor not racist, because presumably some of the personnel enforcing segregation had no racist intentions, and presumably some of the personnel who had racist intentions ceased to enforce segregation when the policy was ended.
It was foolish of anyone to think that systemic prejudicial biases should not be ignored; thank goodness people who benefit from those systemic biases are around to correct this misconception before their brains explode trying to understand that it is possible to challenge a system of privilege without attacking the privileged.
blacks are in a "you owe me" mindset, so it's hard to educate them if you are too lazy to learn English, then you need to go back home Juan. "Press 1 for English 2 for Espanol" makes me want to set on the Mexican border with a 50 caliber sniper rifle, and a semi truck load of ammo, and pick off anything that sets a toe on OUR soil.
No, you're not racist. Bigotry, as stupid as it is, requires some brain activity to function. You're just a badly implemented bigot meme bot.
It's absolute bullshit that there are serious external impediments to black success. If people can find a way to buy $400 sneakers, they can buy a computer.
You crackers can't make yourselves look any less ignorant. Keep up the good work.
Okay so there's more to it, according to your narrative. You spent some time explaining why, in your experience, you believe that. But you couldn't be bothered to explain what more there is to it. So, out with it.
and he isn't declared innocent either if he isn't charged.
Actually, he is. That's what "innocent until proven guilty" means, and that is the legal status of any person in the US who has not been tried and convicted.
You need to bring him to court to determine guilty or not.
Which is not the same as "innocent". It is "guilty" or "not guilty".
Note: I am not saying that this person is innocent, in a moral sense; he clearly is not. I'm only speaking to the legal structure.
Well, for one, if you don't like the political direction your state is headed in, you could always move to another state.
Right, and... where that is true if US states are sovereign, it's likewise true with sovereign world states.
If the states had more control, you could have gay marriage and Marijuana be legal over here, and those bible thumpers down there can outlaw gay marriage and reinstate prohibition.
This is not appealing. Human rights shouldn't be subject to referendum.
These people over here on the sunny/windy coast can ban fossil fuels and subsidize (with their own damn tax base) wind turbines and solar panels all over the place without skyrocketing energy prices in the midwest where it's not so sunny and windy all the time.
I think you and I both know that's not how the energy market works. You're going to have skyrocketing energy prices in the midwest (just as we do on the coast) regardless of policy.
Hopefully you were successful at "training" yourself.
I don't know why you need to use scare quotes. Do you never have to train yourself? It must be nice being perfect.
The problem is that most people less capable than you AS WELL AS more capable than you probably assume they're both the same thing, since really, they are pretty close.
For whatever it's worth, it's exclusively non-techie people who react that way.
HTML, Perl, etc. - just a spectrum.
Well, for one... hardly. There's a world of difference between document markup and even the most basic, procedural logic specification. Second, the comment is always used to mean "design the graphics that appear on my screen", which doesn't even arrive at markup; it's from people who, not knowing at all how the innernets work, just assume someone somewhere starts in Photoshop and exports Google.
You could correct them to say "I design the backside of web pages
That wouldn't necessarily be entirely correct—I also design the interactive portions of the frontside of web pages. Usually I correct them to say, "yes, I do some design work, but mostly I'm a programmer", which isn't entirely correct and doesn't entirely convey my work, but that's all most people care about or are interested in understanding. If they want to know more, I go on from there.
The point was that, outside a tech background, my usual experience is that people hear "web _______" and assume... well, Photoshop.
No, it's not. I already explained my reasoning, but you completely ignored it. You are advocating creating 50 sovereign states where there is 1, and you are advocating eliminating the current arrangement wherein the localized abuses of a given state can be mitigated by the others. That is in every way a recipe for increased government power.
The power is currently all usurped in one single place
Right, and you're advocating multiplying that by 50.
where in fact it cannot reside by Constitution of USA. The States are SUPPOSED to have the power that the federal gov't stole
Right, you're advocating multiplying that power by 50.
and I don't see much opposition to this theft, but whatever
Well, I do. But it isn't an effective political position because it's hypocritical.
The States ALREADY have that power, they CHOOSE not to exercise it.
Wrong. They are not, and never were, sovereign. And I can't imagine why you'd want them to be.
So taking power away from the federal government REDUCES the overall amount of power that is held by the government, it cannot increase it by definition.
It reduces the power of one government, and gives it to 50 governments. That is an increase, by definition.
US didn't have a design.
Of course it did. Haven't you ever read anything written by the people who promoted secession from Britain? They designed the US to be a republic, inspired by the liberal enlightenment but retaining a whole host of feudalist trappings like a powerful gentry and a slave class, and from the outset a goal of an expansionist empire. Which, amazingly enough, is precisely what it became upon independence.
the old ideas from Britain of holding power in very few hands couldn't apply based on the law that only those with land can vote, because on the new continent near half of the people actually owned the land
It was still only land-owners who were enfranchised (and of course only certain kinds of people were entitled to own land). I'm not sure what your point is.
They were independent enough such that they had separate legislature and separate courts, there was no centralization.
There was a federal legislature, and the Articles were intended to be a permanent federation. The degree of centralization was certainly a debate, but there was never a time where the US states were sovereign.
I am not talking about EU, I am talking about the nations that comprise it and their own history full of genocide, enfranchisement, slavery etc.
You're moving the goalposts. Your claim was about the founding of the EU versus the founding of the US.
The USA had a much quicker route to unionization, that's what I am telling you. Europe had a long history before it created the union and US States didn't have a very long history at all.
Then I don't understand what your objection is. Because what I'm telling you is the same; it took place, in fact, in the foundation of the US.
The end result is the same with total destruction of individual liberties, and this has to be fixed.
I think "total destruction" is extremely hyperbolic—we are, after all, debating this topic publicly and neither of us will be sent to prison for it—but... the fact is, "this has to be fixed" is not an adequate defense for a proposition; you have to demonstrate that your proposition will actually fix it. And it won't. You haven't even offered any reasoning to suggest it would, you've offered only assertions. And you haven't even approached challenging any of the specific objections to the proposal.
all that text based on simple misunderstanding that in USA there are multiple levels of government and different elections
I don't misunderstand that. I'm well aware of that. I don't see how it's relevant.
thus separate problems have to be solved on separate levels
There are indeed different problems that need to be solved in different ways and in different venues. But you're advocating a principle of opposition to government power, and advocating a strategy that involves creating more government power. You cannot solve the one with the other. I'm pointing out the extreme error in logic in "states rights", and ultimately the hypocrisy of it.
It cannot all be lumped together, those are divide and conquer issues, what is not clear?
I'm not "lumping together", I'm being consistent and asking you to do the same. I'm not sure how it has anything to do with "divide and conquer", other than that we disagree and are thus divided. We're already conquered. You're advocating a proposition that would heighten that conquest.
The original 13 States were for all purposes separate countries.
The hell they were! They were colonies of European states. Upon "independence", they were immediately brought into a single federal government, one which its founders intended to conquer further territory, eventually subsuming an entire continent. That was always the design of the US.
Looking at history of the way European countries developed I don't see much difference except that it in fact was more democratic in US.
Surely you're kidding. In the US, a handful of unelected intellectuals convened to form a system of government predicated on slavery, wealth- and power-based enfranchisement, genocide and expansion. None of that was the foundation of the formation of the EU.
Uh, the state/federal dichotomy? That's the dichotomy you began with.
1. There are many States - 50. This already precludes a monopoly situation, because every State has its own legislature.
Just as there are 50 US states, there are also 194 states (with an additional 10 under dispute) in the world, each of which has its own sovereignty. Does this preclude monopoly situation with regards to the US federal government? Of course not; the monopoly power is internal, not external. The same would be true under the proposal to treat US states as sovereign.
2. Dealing with a legislative monopoly within a State is a separate issue.
Why on Earth would it be? If your principle is that a government monopoly is destructive to freedom, that would be true of any government monopoly, regardless of size or jurisdiction.
All States are different in their needs and how their citizens like to run them.
Just as countries.
Personally, I would divide the power further, but again, the important point is not to have one single monopoly that a citizen cannot run away from without leaving the country.
Why is that the important distinction? These concepts—state, country—are arbitrary. In the hypothetical, what is the principle distinction between having to flee Oklahoma and having to flee the United States?
When federal government makes a mistake, you can't just move from one State to another to alleviate it.
I don't understand what the value of that is, or how it differs from moving from one state (of the world) to another, especially in a context where US states have taken the sovereign world state powers from the US federal government.
you say it's unjust, somebody else says it's just.
Also true under federal law.
The point is not what to do with separate states, the point is to make sure than a law is not uniformly applied to everybody without their ability to escape it
So it sounds like you're opposed to law, entirely. That is an argument I'm willing to listen to and consider, but not if it is inconsistent. But...
without leaving the country
I still don't understand this distinction, or its importance.
I am against all government power.
That much is obvious. That's why it's confounding to find such a gaping hole in logic in promoting "state rights".
In practice this means that the power has to be divided and dealt as separate issues.
That is far from obvious. Let's be clear; by delegating the operating powers of the US federal government to US states, all you are doing is creating 50 sovereign states. It is unclear how this advances the cause of freedom, or undermines government power in any way.
I am in Europe now, so it's not different from EU, with member States being separate countries. 2 years ago I was already asking various people in different countries in EU when are they going to wake up and realize that one solution does not fit all (especially monetary and economic policy), they were shrugging it off. Not anymore.
It's a compelling analogy on the surface, but the differences are stark and carry a lot of weight. The EU member-states are sovereign states of the world; US "states" are not, and never were. The term "state" in the US parlance is a misnomer, and it's an anachronism to equate the two. That said, for all of the problems with EU centralization, the failure of economic policy has not been centralization, but a failure to actually effect centralization (and here I'm not promoting centralization, just recognizing that inconsistent application is the practical failing). Insofar as centralization exists
because it's one and it can set one monopoly law, while in reality it is up to States to decide such things
This is precisely what I am asking about. Why is it better to have "state" monopolies than "federal" monopolies?
and people in States can decide against setting government laws as well, but it is important to make the distinction on what the federal government is allowed and is not authorized to do
Why? What difference does it make? If a state passes an unjust law, how is that preferable to an unjust federal law? If you will say that it's better because those out of jurisdiction of the state aren't (necessarily) affected, the same logic applies to the federal jurisdiction, and what, we throw the people in that state under the bus?
We are not talking about elections of State governors, right? This is about the presidential situation here.
I don't know what you're talking about; I'm talking about the US libertarian preference for state power over federal power. It's completely bewildering, and I'm asking what its basis is, other than that it was one system among many proposed by a handful of people a couple hundred years ago.
Also, you'd probably do your candidate and position more favors (which, despite some misgivings, I genuinely want you to do!) without this kind of paranoid hyperbole. Face it, while libertarian principles are certainly not respected in our society as it stands, you are not uniquely victimized by an Orwellian nightmare state simply for explaining your position on Internet message boards.
You have a real struggle to fight. Try to take it seriously enough not to look like a fool.
Wait, what? As opposed to... state governments? UN One World Lizard-People in Black Helicopters Government?* What is the point of your distinction? All government (state, in political science terms) is a monopoly, by definition and necessity. Why is the US federal government special?
This is what I never can understand about US libertarianism. If government is inherently destructive to liberty (I agree), if government is inherently at the root of corporate malfeasance (I think I agree), if government is all of the bad things US libertarians say... then when the proposal is to gut the US federal government and, implicitly or explicitly, bolster US state governments, all of your work is still ahead of you. Again, what makes the US federal government special? Or, what makes the states special?
* It's a joke. I'm not trying to imply you're one of those fools. Unless you are, in which case... whatever, it's not relevant
In casual conversation among people who wouldn't know the nuances of the various "programmer"-like terms, I do say, "I'm a programmer." It gets the point across simply that most people understand.
I've had to train myself never to use the term "web developer", because more often than not the next thing I hear is along the lines of "so you design web pages?" I've also had to train myself not to feel insulted when that happens.
That's absolutely ridiculous. Asking "what if?" about history is a strategy for coming to understand the mechanics of social change and upheaval. It helps those who ponder the question to understand which conditions and feedbacks shape history, and how they do so. And it's part of a toolset that makes history meaningful for anything other than trivia, as coming to understand how history is shaped—how and why societies change—is power in the hands of people who want to shape history.
But go on, tell us more about how it does no good to wonder about the world we'd live in if, say, there had never been a "War on Terror".
Even if JS were a W3C standard, that shouldn't prevent Google or any other vendor from proposing and promoting alternatives. W3C isn't king of the WWW, and even if they were that doesn't mean they shouldn't be subject to challenge in that role. This is why we have HTML5, rather than XHTML2.
matters that shouldn't even be a university's business (like wars, union organizing
Those are both very obviously a university's business. Aside from the fact that many universities receive some of their funding (and in some cases, most to nearly all; MIT during Vietnam being a good example) from the Department of Defense and other government agencies associated with military activity; and aside from the fact that many universities have union staff and faculty; and aside from the fact that even where universities don't have unionized staff and faculty, they share trades with unionized labor in other institutions—putting aside all of the directly relevant connections, the university's purpose is to provide a full and rounded education as well as to provide opportunities for people to become themselves more full and rounded. There are few subjects I could think of that would be more important for university students to engage in that that of war and peace, and of the conditions and influence of working people.
I'm not really offended by your comments, but I pity your ignorance.
Slashdot Mirror
Correction: a boring, badly implemented bigot meme bot.
The only thing that I can figure is that I've seen "NBA" over and over and fucking over in these comments because a handful of scrawny, alabaster nerds are bitter because when they tried out for their high school basketball teams they were alarmed to discover that for once they weren't getting a free pass.
Yeah, we get it. There are a few rich—even a few powerful—black Americans. Since no one ever said there aren't, can we get back to discussing:
1. Something that's relevant to the website we're on (not your shattered basketball dreams);
2. Something that's relevant to the article we're commenting on (not your shattered basketball dreams);
3. I don't know... maybe a multi-billion-dollar industry with thousands upon thousands of participants that is quite a bit more representative of the broader culture it comes from than an entertainment industry with a very tiny set of participants who are extraordinarily skilled and fit?
I don't even have to click that link to know that dictionary.reference.com is the final source for all sociological knowledge and insight, and that it's impossible that there could be more to understand than a few simplistic and unprovocative definitions about a centuries-old social phenomenon that has swept whole nations into war, civil unrest, mass murder and genocide. Obviously only some individuals' personal feelings about something as vague as "race" could accomplish these social events. And since I trust your source as the final one for all sociological knowledge and insight—and therefore that your assertion that racism requires intent is correct—I can know that, for instance, segregation of buses in Montgomery, Alabama, was neither racist nor not racist, because presumably some of the personnel enforcing segregation had no racist intentions, and presumably some of the personnel who had racist intentions ceased to enforce segregation when the policy was ended.
It was foolish of anyone to think that systemic prejudicial biases should not be ignored; thank goodness people who benefit from those systemic biases are around to correct this misconception before their brains explode trying to understand that it is possible to challenge a system of privilege without attacking the privileged.
blacks are in a "you owe me" mindset, so it's hard to educate them if you are too lazy to learn English, then you need to go back home Juan. "Press 1 for English 2 for Espanol" makes me want to set on the Mexican border with a 50 caliber sniper rifle, and a semi truck load of ammo, and pick off anything that sets a toe on OUR soil.
No, you're not racist. Bigotry, as stupid as it is, requires some brain activity to function. You're just a badly implemented bigot meme bot.
It's absolute bullshit that there are serious external impediments to black success. If people can find a way to buy $400 sneakers, they can buy a computer.
You crackers can't make yourselves look any less ignorant. Keep up the good work.
Okay so there's more to it, according to your narrative. You spent some time explaining why, in your experience, you believe that. But you couldn't be bothered to explain what more there is to it. So, out with it.
That doesn't change his legal status.
and he isn't declared innocent either if he isn't charged.
Actually, he is. That's what "innocent until proven guilty" means, and that is the legal status of any person in the US who has not been tried and convicted.
You need to bring him to court to determine guilty or not.
Which is not the same as "innocent". It is "guilty" or "not guilty".
Note: I am not saying that this person is innocent, in a moral sense; he clearly is not. I'm only speaking to the legal structure.
Well, for one, if you don't like the political direction your state is headed in, you could always move to another state.
Right, and... where that is true if US states are sovereign, it's likewise true with sovereign world states.
If the states had more control, you could have gay marriage and Marijuana be legal over here, and those bible thumpers down there can outlaw gay marriage and reinstate prohibition.
This is not appealing. Human rights shouldn't be subject to referendum.
These people over here on the sunny/windy coast can ban fossil fuels and subsidize (with their own damn tax base) wind turbines and solar panels all over the place without skyrocketing energy prices in the midwest where it's not so sunny and windy all the time.
I think you and I both know that's not how the energy market works. You're going to have skyrocketing energy prices in the midwest (just as we do on the coast) regardless of policy.
Hopefully you were successful at "training" yourself.
I don't know why you need to use scare quotes. Do you never have to train yourself? It must be nice being perfect.
The problem is that most people less capable than you AS WELL AS more capable than you probably assume they're both the same thing, since really, they are pretty close.
For whatever it's worth, it's exclusively non-techie people who react that way.
HTML, Perl, etc. - just a spectrum.
Well, for one... hardly. There's a world of difference between document markup and even the most basic, procedural logic specification. Second, the comment is always used to mean "design the graphics that appear on my screen", which doesn't even arrive at markup; it's from people who, not knowing at all how the innernets work, just assume someone somewhere starts in Photoshop and exports Google.
You could correct them to say "I design the backside of web pages
That wouldn't necessarily be entirely correct—I also design the interactive portions of the frontside of web pages. Usually I correct them to say, "yes, I do some design work, but mostly I'm a programmer", which isn't entirely correct and doesn't entirely convey my work, but that's all most people care about or are interested in understanding. If they want to know more, I go on from there. The point was that, outside a tech background, my usual experience is that people hear "web _______" and assume... well, Photoshop.
this is pure nonsense.
No, it's not. I already explained my reasoning, but you completely ignored it. You are advocating creating 50 sovereign states where there is 1, and you are advocating eliminating the current arrangement wherein the localized abuses of a given state can be mitigated by the others. That is in every way a recipe for increased government power.
The power is currently all usurped in one single place
Right, and you're advocating multiplying that by 50.
where in fact it cannot reside by Constitution of USA. The States are SUPPOSED to have the power that the federal gov't stole
Right, you're advocating multiplying that power by 50.
and I don't see much opposition to this theft, but whatever
Well, I do. But it isn't an effective political position because it's hypocritical.
The States ALREADY have that power, they CHOOSE not to exercise it.
Wrong. They are not, and never were, sovereign. And I can't imagine why you'd want them to be.
So taking power away from the federal government REDUCES the overall amount of power that is held by the government, it cannot increase it by definition.
It reduces the power of one government, and gives it to 50 governments. That is an increase, by definition.
US didn't have a design.
Of course it did. Haven't you ever read anything written by the people who promoted secession from Britain? They designed the US to be a republic, inspired by the liberal enlightenment but retaining a whole host of feudalist trappings like a powerful gentry and a slave class, and from the outset a goal of an expansionist empire. Which, amazingly enough, is precisely what it became upon independence.
the old ideas from Britain of holding power in very few hands couldn't apply based on the law that only those with land can vote, because on the new continent near half of the people actually owned the land
It was still only land-owners who were enfranchised (and of course only certain kinds of people were entitled to own land). I'm not sure what your point is.
They were independent enough such that they had separate legislature and separate courts, there was no centralization.
There was a federal legislature, and the Articles were intended to be a permanent federation. The degree of centralization was certainly a debate, but there was never a time where the US states were sovereign.
I am not talking about EU, I am talking about the nations that comprise it and their own history full of genocide, enfranchisement, slavery etc.
You're moving the goalposts. Your claim was about the founding of the EU versus the founding of the US.
The USA had a much quicker route to unionization, that's what I am telling you. Europe had a long history before it created the union and US States didn't have a very long history at all.
Then I don't understand what your objection is. Because what I'm telling you is the same; it took place, in fact, in the foundation of the US.
The end result is the same with total destruction of individual liberties, and this has to be fixed.
I think "total destruction" is extremely hyperbolic—we are, after all, debating this topic publicly and neither of us will be sent to prison for it—but... the fact is, "this has to be fixed" is not an adequate defense for a proposition; you have to demonstrate that your proposition will actually fix it. And it won't. You haven't even offered any reasoning to suggest it would, you've offered only assertions. And you haven't even approached challenging any of the specific objections to the proposal.
all that text based on simple misunderstanding that in USA there are multiple levels of government and different elections
I don't misunderstand that. I'm well aware of that. I don't see how it's relevant.
thus separate problems have to be solved on separate levels
There are indeed different problems that need to be solved in different ways and in different venues. But you're advocating a principle of opposition to government power, and advocating a strategy that involves creating more government power. You cannot solve the one with the other. I'm pointing out the extreme error in logic in "states rights", and ultimately the hypocrisy of it.
It cannot all be lumped together, those are divide and conquer issues, what is not clear?
I'm not "lumping together", I'm being consistent and asking you to do the same. I'm not sure how it has anything to do with "divide and conquer", other than that we disagree and are thus divided. We're already conquered. You're advocating a proposition that would heighten that conquest.
The original 13 States were for all purposes separate countries.
The hell they were! They were colonies of European states. Upon "independence", they were immediately brought into a single federal government, one which its founders intended to conquer further territory, eventually subsuming an entire continent. That was always the design of the US.
Looking at history of the way European countries developed I don't see much difference except that it in fact was more democratic in US.
Surely you're kidding. In the US, a handful of unelected intellectuals convened to form a system of government predicated on slavery, wealth- and power-based enfranchisement, genocide and expansion. None of that was the foundation of the formation of the EU.
Sorry for the huge wall of text; Slashdot started eating my line breaks for some reason.
where do you get this dichotomy from?
Uh, the state/federal dichotomy? That's the dichotomy you began with.
1. There are many States - 50. This already precludes a monopoly situation, because every State has its own legislature.
Just as there are 50 US states, there are also 194 states (with an additional 10 under dispute) in the world, each of which has its own sovereignty. Does this preclude monopoly situation with regards to the US federal government? Of course not; the monopoly power is internal, not external. The same would be true under the proposal to treat US states as sovereign.
2. Dealing with a legislative monopoly within a State is a separate issue.
Why on Earth would it be? If your principle is that a government monopoly is destructive to freedom, that would be true of any government monopoly, regardless of size or jurisdiction.
All States are different in their needs and how their citizens like to run them.
Just as countries.
Personally, I would divide the power further, but again, the important point is not to have one single monopoly that a citizen cannot run away from without leaving the country.
Why is that the important distinction? These concepts—state, country—are arbitrary. In the hypothetical, what is the principle distinction between having to flee Oklahoma and having to flee the United States?
When federal government makes a mistake, you can't just move from one State to another to alleviate it.
I don't understand what the value of that is, or how it differs from moving from one state (of the world) to another, especially in a context where US states have taken the sovereign world state powers from the US federal government.
you say it's unjust, somebody else says it's just.
Also true under federal law.
The point is not what to do with separate states, the point is to make sure than a law is not uniformly applied to everybody without their ability to escape it
So it sounds like you're opposed to law, entirely. That is an argument I'm willing to listen to and consider, but not if it is inconsistent. But...
without leaving the country
I still don't understand this distinction, or its importance.
I am against all government power.
That much is obvious. That's why it's confounding to find such a gaping hole in logic in promoting "state rights".
In practice this means that the power has to be divided and dealt as separate issues.
That is far from obvious. Let's be clear; by delegating the operating powers of the US federal government to US states, all you are doing is creating 50 sovereign states. It is unclear how this advances the cause of freedom, or undermines government power in any way.
I am in Europe now, so it's not different from EU, with member States being separate countries. 2 years ago I was already asking various people in different countries in EU when are they going to wake up and realize that one solution does not fit all (especially monetary and economic policy), they were shrugging it off. Not anymore.
It's a compelling analogy on the surface, but the differences are stark and carry a lot of weight. The EU member-states are sovereign states of the world; US "states" are not, and never were. The term "state" in the US parlance is a misnomer, and it's an anachronism to equate the two. That said, for all of the problems with EU centralization, the failure of economic policy has not been centralization, but a failure to actually effect centralization (and here I'm not promoting centralization, just recognizing that inconsistent application is the practical failing). Insofar as centralization exists
because it's one and it can set one monopoly law, while in reality it is up to States to decide such things
This is precisely what I am asking about. Why is it better to have "state" monopolies than "federal" monopolies?
and people in States can decide against setting government laws as well, but it is important to make the distinction on what the federal government is allowed and is not authorized to do
Why? What difference does it make? If a state passes an unjust law, how is that preferable to an unjust federal law? If you will say that it's better because those out of jurisdiction of the state aren't (necessarily) affected, the same logic applies to the federal jurisdiction, and what, we throw the people in that state under the bus?
We are not talking about elections of State governors, right? This is about the presidential situation here.
I don't know what you're talking about; I'm talking about the US libertarian preference for state power over federal power. It's completely bewildering, and I'm asking what its basis is, other than that it was one system among many proposed by a handful of people a couple hundred years ago.
Also, you'd probably do your candidate and position more favors (which, despite some misgivings, I genuinely want you to do!) without this kind of paranoid hyperbole. Face it, while libertarian principles are certainly not respected in our society as it stands, you are not uniquely victimized by an Orwellian nightmare state simply for explaining your position on Internet message boards. You have a real struggle to fight. Try to take it seriously enough not to look like a fool.
For the monopoly of FEDERAL government
Wait, what? As opposed to... state governments? UN One World Lizard-People in Black Helicopters Government?* What is the point of your distinction? All government (state, in political science terms) is a monopoly, by definition and necessity. Why is the US federal government special? This is what I never can understand about US libertarianism. If government is inherently destructive to liberty (I agree), if government is inherently at the root of corporate malfeasance (I think I agree), if government is all of the bad things US libertarians say... then when the proposal is to gut the US federal government and, implicitly or explicitly, bolster US state governments, all of your work is still ahead of you. Again, what makes the US federal government special? Or, what makes the states special? * It's a joke. I'm not trying to imply you're one of those fools. Unless you are, in which case... whatever, it's not relevant
In casual conversation among people who wouldn't know the nuances of the various "programmer"-like terms, I do say, "I'm a programmer." It gets the point across simply that most people understand.
I've had to train myself never to use the term "web developer", because more often than not the next thing I hear is along the lines of "so you design web pages?" I've also had to train myself not to feel insulted when that happens.
MS would have to rewrite w3c and lock html, encrypt it with proprietary protocols not based on HTTP, and do crazy shit to kill all competition.
With total browser market control, they could certainly achieve that; and they very nearly did.
That's absolutely ridiculous. Asking "what if?" about history is a strategy for coming to understand the mechanics of social change and upheaval. It helps those who ponder the question to understand which conditions and feedbacks shape history, and how they do so. And it's part of a toolset that makes history meaningful for anything other than trivia, as coming to understand how history is shaped—how and why societies change—is power in the hands of people who want to shape history. But go on, tell us more about how it does no good to wonder about the world we'd live in if, say, there had never been a "War on Terror".
Even if JS were a W3C standard, that shouldn't prevent Google or any other vendor from proposing and promoting alternatives. W3C isn't king of the WWW, and even if they were that doesn't mean they shouldn't be subject to challenge in that role. This is why we have HTML5, rather than XHTML2.
Why not?
Best rant of all day.
matters that shouldn't even be a university's business (like wars, union organizing
Those are both very obviously a university's business. Aside from the fact that many universities receive some of their funding (and in some cases, most to nearly all; MIT during Vietnam being a good example) from the Department of Defense and other government agencies associated with military activity; and aside from the fact that many universities have union staff and faculty; and aside from the fact that even where universities don't have unionized staff and faculty, they share trades with unionized labor in other institutions—putting aside all of the directly relevant connections, the university's purpose is to provide a full and rounded education as well as to provide opportunities for people to become themselves more full and rounded. There are few subjects I could think of that would be more important for university students to engage in that that of war and peace, and of the conditions and influence of working people. I'm not really offended by your comments, but I pity your ignorance.
If that were true, then any creative work that did not include a license would have no restrictions.
No, under copyright law, without a license you would have no right consume another person's creative work whatsoever.