Hmm,
I think a few things are or will be changing. Now as an amateur democracy activist I think more things would change if U.S. citizens had more political power. Or at least were aware of how little political power they have compared to most other democracies.
By the way - Missing the former certainty of the filibuster "comrade." The fact that the filibuster could be eliminated with a majority vote was leaked!
From TFA
QUOTE... for a business that requires "enormously high" fixed costs -- digging up the streets, put the wires in -- and operational expense, "it is a completely rational and acceptable process to figure out how to fairly allocate those costs among your consumers who are choosing the service and will pay you to recover those costs.UNQUOTE
To me -- "digging up the streets, put the wires in" - are start-up costs. And I would be willing to agree that they are "enormously high" However; operational expenses plus depreciation, insurance, etc. are recurring or "fixed" costs. My understanding is that operational "fixed" costs are very much, lower.
I have no problem with conspicuous consumers of bandwidth paying more. My problem is with costs not dropping for all consumers!
If you input the word capitalism into Google's Ngram viewer http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=5&smoothing=3
the word becomes popular around 1880, and about 10 or 15 years earlier in Britain. This agrees with what I have read. I have read, many years ago, that the origin of the word was undetermined, but that it was almost certainly popularized by Karl Marx.
The only reason I mention this is that Marx defined Capitalism, as control of the state by capital/Capitalists. I would prefer the term competition over capitalism. Capitalism is a poorly defined word, while competition is familiar to anyone that understands a market.
More on the value of copyrights and copies
TED Talk Video
Comic author Rob Reid unveils Copyright Math (TM), a remarkable new field of study based on actual numbers from entertainment industry lawyers and lobbyists.
They were also distributing the msg's using HAM equipment. I was temporarily living in a situation with my Tandy Color Computer, but no telephone! I didn't have a HAM license, but I discovered that you could receive the messages with a shortwave receiver and a radio modem. So I spent $300 - $400 so I could STARE at the msg's for the few weeks until I got back home.
Anthony Mouse wrote: The primaries are what matter.
Yes & No You have a point, but the incumbents that control the hill committees have a lot of power behind the scenes. This is the kind of stuff that the newspapers rarely mention.
see reference: Our Glorious National Committees: Ever wonder what they do?
DNS-and-BIND wrote:
If they do that (support multiple issues) then they're no longer the Pirate Party,
Actually that is a good tactic. Most nations, other than the U.S., allow private member-based political party organizations to have control of the politicians that want to run under the parties ballot label. This allows enforceable party platforms.
Copyright issues may not be the primary issue for a large number of voters, although they may be friendly or a least neutral. These voters can be encouraged to vote for the Pirate party by including other issues in the Party platform, and promising to enforce this platform on the parties elected politicians.
RE: If just 5% of the American public wanted to overthrow the government, an armed revolution would be possible.
Hey it doesn't even take 5% since you didn't predict victory. If you did, you might need a little more than 5%
You also seem to be labeling the vast majority of the population stupid because they have different priorities than you. Some probably want to raise their children, or some other thing, before running out in the street shooting guns in the air. Maybe they are saving that type of activity for retirement.
Personally my primary interest is the U.S. political system.
I wonder why more people don't use "market" or "market economy" It was the earlier term.
Prior to "Capitalism," the word "market" was used. In 1776, Adam Smith's book "Wealth of Nations," explained economics in terms of a country market so that everyone could understand. However, He then also described wages as being subject to the same forces.(ie labor market) Finally Smith wrote something to the effect that the whole world could be viewed as a market. This is what changed the word market to include a system as opposed just to a location.
ref. "Wealth of Nations"
I have heard that the word "capitalism" became popular about the same time as Karl Marx was writing about it, although I don't think he invented the term. Marx used the term historically for the political control of the state by the wealthy, as opposed to the feudal nobility. The earliest use of the word Capitalism or capitalism (in books) that I could find is 1880!
ref. Google Books Ngram Viewer books.google.com/ngrams/graph
Graph these case-sensitive comma-separated phrases: Capitalism
I just didn't have any points to mod you up.:>) I am also using this post to see what checking (No Karma Bonus) actually does. Does anyone know any reason for checking No Karma Bonus?
My volunteer work is to educate people about our political system. I have spent a decade or two at it. You have to be aware of how our system works before you can operate within it. (Without being used) Politicians love it if you operate within it without understanding it!
I often vote for independent candidates, but have you ever wondered how many people are aware of the modified and fairly unique aspects of our modern U.S. political parties? Did you know about this?
You might be interested in this new positive wrinkle created by the Internet. Politicians can now distribute political platforms directly to their target audience using modern communication methods such as the Internet, and by-passing our mass gate-keeper media. ref:
The Modern U.S. Political Platforms: Do they work? http://i-voter.tripod.com/Platforms.html
I agree with your judgement about political choice being more important than becoming a
bought and paid for, single party-label voter. However, you may have noticed that I substituted the phrase "party-label" for "political party." Our U.S. political parties have been "reformed" if you wish to use that word. A am afraid that the political trickery is over a mile deep and half a continent wide. U.S. political parties are now quite unique - by law!.
.(US).. law enforcement can easily get subpoena's to track individual users now. Imagine if the government was IN CONTROL of the internet.
Are you saying that although the US government can gain large amounts information it wants quite easily from private enterprises now - if it became a publicly regulated utility they could gain more? That may be true, but I view it more as a question of political power. My rule of is that those without power tend to suffer. Back in the 60's - when the "Russkies" terrorized our corporate state - It seemed to me that privacy laws were much stronger. That would include publicly regulated utilities.
How do Slashdot people feel about the regulation of political parties in the U.S.? People who tend to oppose government regulation never mention this subject. It doesn't seem to interest them.
Great Quote from 1927
Here in the last generation, a development has taken place which finds an analogy nowhere else. American parties have ceased to be voluntary associations like trade unions or the good government clubs or the churches. They have lost the right freely to determine how candidates shall be nominated and platforms framed, even who shall belong to the party and who shall lead it. The state legislatures have regulated their structure and functions in great detail."
RE: Democracy is a political system. Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are economic systems.
Whats your point?
Basics first. Are you trying to pretend that you can define Capitalism,or Socialism, or Communism, or whatever "ism" you choose and declare a winner? Words are subjective and ism's are very subjective. I have read so many different definitions that I can't count them. Those with the power make the rules. They tend to create, or modify, an economic system so that it benefits themselves.
It's funny seeing people arguing for either Capitalism or Communism without mentioning democracy.
Emphasizing democracy would mean neither capital (wealth) or a state bureaucracy would be as likely to control the state. The principle would be the well being of the people. Ignoring democracy makes the argument over Capitalism and Communism fairly meaningless.They are both just ways of gaining power over the people.
Perhaps you think the U.S. is a democracy? My subjective answer would be not as much as you might think, and not as much as it once was.
This concept stems from Adam Smith's book The Wealth of Nations. The original phrase would have been "the invisible hand of the market." Not that Smith actually used the exact phrase.
The point that I would make was that by Adam Smith's time jury nullification was fully accepted and contract law was judged by the people who had the right to sit on a jury. This indicates to me that while the market was, to a significant extent, freer from the State, It was no longer as free from the people.
Note: At this time the only real power the House of Commons had was to tax the commoners, or refuse to do so. The House of Lords had a total veto on all legislation.
To me the use of the term free-market in the U.S. implies that it is free from the people. To put it simply, the government always serves someones interest, and people without power tend to suffer.
If someone believes that words on a piece of paper will defend their rights, they are not a republican or a democrat, they are fools. Only people have the interest to defend political rights that benefit people.
You can not have it both ways. A political system that gives most political power to an an elite will not be defended by those without power. Also, those without power will not help you turn the tide back to the way it was. The powerless may, or may not, be highly educated, but they are not such fools as would put their trust in a piece of paper! I suspect you can see the writing on the wall - to use a vaguely biblical phrase.
Wrong! A republic just means that political rule is not by a hereditary nobility. The franchise was restricted, but people voted for representation. The USA was often described as a democracy. SEE: Tocqueville's, Democracy in America, pub 1835.
Wildly Wrong! In fact we had a great deal more political power than we have now! Those who had the franchise had jury nullification. Jury nullification included the right to judge contracts, speech issues, theft, etc. The Constitutional Relationship of the People to the Law
RE: per our Constitution, the government is supposed to have little political power as well.
That brings up something that I think needs to be more widely understood, although it is not a constitutional issue. It is the effective outlawing of political parties. It gives incumbent politicians much greater power. What is a Political Party
The vast majority of the U.S. population has little political power compared to most other democratic nations. I wonder if many of the people who promote standing up for "liberty," ever consider the relationship democracy has to "liberty" or "freedom." Are liberty and freedom defined by, and stem from, democratic principles or elite principles? We no longer have any real jury nullification power in the US. The terms liberty and freedom mean nothing. You must explain who has the right to define the laws relating to them.
Politically speaking, if freedom only means "nothing else to lose," then you are fairly free in the U.S. - it could include our large prison population.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmm,
I think a few things are or will be changing. Now as an amateur democracy activist I think more things would change if U.S. citizens had more political power. Or at least were aware of how little political power they have compared to most other democracies.
By the way - Missing the former certainty of the filibuster "comrade." The fact that the filibuster could be eliminated with a majority vote was leaked!
Jack (I_Voter)
Some relatively unknown and hopefully interesting things about the U.S. political system.
http://www.dancarlin.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=31156:
Jury Nullification In New Hampshire Becomes Reality
http://www.policymic.com/articles/10603/jury-nullification-in-new-hampshire-becomes-reality:
From TFA
QUOTE... for a business that requires "enormously high" fixed costs -- digging up the streets, put the wires in -- and operational expense, "it is a completely rational and acceptable process to figure out how to fairly allocate those costs among your consumers who are choosing the service and will pay you to recover those costs.UNQUOTE
To me -- "digging up the streets, put the wires in" - are start-up costs. And I would be willing to agree that they are "enormously high" However; operational expenses plus depreciation, insurance, etc. are recurring or "fixed" costs. My understanding is that operational "fixed" costs are very much, lower.
I have no problem with conspicuous consumers of bandwidth paying more. My problem is with costs not dropping for all consumers!
If this article was designed as click-bait - perhaps that explains quality of the articles we see on Slashdot.
Re:capitalism
If you input the word capitalism into Google's Ngram viewer
http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=5&smoothing=3
the word becomes popular around 1880, and about 10 or 15 years earlier in Britain. This agrees with what I have read. I have read, many years ago, that the origin of the word was undetermined, but that it was almost certainly popularized by Karl Marx.
The only reason I mention this is that Marx defined Capitalism, as control of the state by capital/Capitalists. I would prefer the term competition over capitalism. Capitalism is a poorly defined word, while competition is familiar to anyone that understands a market.
More on the value of copyrights and copies
TED Talk Video
Comic author Rob Reid unveils Copyright Math (TM), a remarkable new field of study based on actual numbers from entertainment industry lawyers and lobbyists.
Web Page
http://www.ted.com/talks/rob_reid_the_8_billion_ipod.html
Download 18MB mp4
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/TEDTalks_video/~5/S3_r1Bi3kc4/RobReid_2012.mp4
They were also distributing the msg's using HAM equipment. I was temporarily living in a situation with my Tandy Color Computer, but no telephone! I didn't have a HAM license, but I discovered that you could receive the messages with a shortwave receiver and a radio modem. So I spent $300 - $400 so I could STARE at the msg's for the few weeks until I got back home.
Our National Committees: Ever wonder what they do?
Re: Jury nullification.
I am not from England. but I seem to remember someone named Tony Blair who modified the right of jury nullification.
U.S. background article
The Constitutional Relationship of the People to the Law
Ron Paul supporters take note - I can not find any mention of Jury nullification on "Mr. Constitution's" campaign website.
Anthony Mouse wrote:
The primaries are what matter.
Yes & No You have a point, but the incumbents that control the hill committees have a lot of power behind the scenes. This is the kind of stuff that the newspapers rarely mention.
see reference:
Our Glorious National Committees: Ever wonder what they do?
This is the only positive political development that I am aware of.
Modern U.S. Party Platforms: From the Voters Perspective
DNS-and-BIND wrote: If they do that (support multiple issues) then they're no longer the Pirate Party,
Actually that is a good tactic. Most nations, other than the U.S., allow private member-based political party organizations to have control of the politicians that want to run under the parties ballot label. This allows enforceable party platforms.
Copyright issues may not be the primary issue for a large number of voters, although they may be friendly or a least neutral. These voters can be encouraged to vote for the Pirate party by including other issues in the Party platform, and promising to enforce this platform on the parties elected politicians.
Background for U.S. citizens What is a Political Party?
RE: If just 5% of the American public wanted to overthrow the government, an armed revolution would be possible.
Hey it doesn't even take 5% since you didn't predict victory. If you did, you might need a little more than 5% You also seem to be labeling the vast majority of the population stupid because they have different priorities than you. Some probably want to raise their children, or some other thing, before running out in the street shooting guns in the air. Maybe they are saving that type of activity for retirement.
Personally my primary interest is the U.S. political system.
Citizen's Political Power in the U.S.
I wonder why more people don't use "market" or "market economy" It was the earlier term.
Prior to "Capitalism," the word "market" was used. In 1776, Adam Smith's book "Wealth of Nations," explained economics in terms of a country market so that everyone could understand. However, He then also described wages as being subject to the same forces.(ie labor market) Finally Smith wrote something to the effect that the whole world could be viewed as a market. This is what changed the word market to include a system as opposed just to a location.
ref. "Wealth of Nations"
I have heard that the word "capitalism" became popular about the same time as Karl Marx was writing about it, although I don't think he invented the term. Marx used the term historically for the political control of the state by the wealthy, as opposed to the feudal nobility. The earliest use of the word Capitalism or capitalism (in books) that I could find is 1880!
ref. Google Books Ngram Viewer
books.google.com/ngrams/graph
Graph these case-sensitive comma-separated phrases: Capitalism
Perhaps he believes it is a crime to sue someone.
:>)
I just didn't have any points to mod you up.
I am also using this post to see what checking (No Karma Bonus) actually does.
Does anyone know any reason for checking No Karma Bonus?
My volunteer work is to educate people about our political system. I have spent a decade or two at it. You have to be aware of how our system works before you can operate within it. (Without being used) Politicians love it if you operate within it without understanding it!
I often vote for independent candidates, but have you ever wondered how many people are aware of the modified and fairly unique aspects of our modern U.S. political parties? Did you know about this?
You might be interested in this new positive wrinkle created by the Internet. Politicians can now distribute political platforms directly to their target audience using modern communication methods such as the Internet, and by-passing our mass gate-keeper media.
ref: The Modern U.S. Political Platforms: Do they work?
http://i-voter.tripod.com/Platforms.html
I agree with your judgement about political choice being more important than becoming a bought and paid for, single party-label voter. However, you may have noticed that I substituted the phrase "party-label" for "political party." Our U.S. political parties have been "reformed" if you wish to use that word. A am afraid that the political trickery is over a mile deep and half a continent wide. U.S. political parties are now quite unique - by law!.
:What is a Political Party?
SEE:.
ref
Warning: Polemic Article!
http://i-voter.tripod.com/US_PoliticalParties.html
RE: get involved during the primaries and select a different party candidate.
There are some non-obvious limits to such a tactic.
ref: Our National Committees: Ever wonder what they do?
http://i-voter.tripod.com/NationalCommittees.html/
As you could probably guess - I like your sig!
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
.(US).. law enforcement can easily get subpoena's to track individual users now. Imagine if the government was IN CONTROL of the internet.
Are you saying that although the US government can gain large amounts information it wants quite easily from private enterprises now - if it became a publicly regulated utility they could gain more? That may be true, but I view it more as a question of political power. My rule of is that those without power tend to suffer. Back in the 60's - when the "Russkies" terrorized our corporate state - It seemed to me that privacy laws were much stronger. That would include publicly regulated utilities.
How do Slashdot people feel about the regulation of political parties in the U.S.? People who tend to oppose government regulation never mention this subject. It doesn't seem to interest them.
Great Quote from 1927
Here in the last generation, a development has taken place which finds an analogy nowhere else. American parties have ceased to be voluntary associations like trade unions or the good government clubs or the churches. They have lost the right freely to determine how candidates shall be nominated and platforms framed, even who shall belong to the party and who shall lead it. The state legislatures have regulated their structure and functions in great detail."
ref What is a Political Party?
http://i-voter.tripod.com/US_PoliticalParties.html
TRIPOD has a free subscription but it doesn't include FTP either. http://www.tripod.lycos.com/web-hosting/compare_plans.pl
Monthly $4.95 Yearly $54.45
Citizen's Political Power in the U.S.
RE: Democracy is a political system. Capitalism, Socialism, and Communism are economic systems.
Whats your point?
Basics first. Are you trying to pretend that you can define Capitalism,or Socialism, or Communism, or whatever "ism" you choose and declare a winner? Words are subjective and ism's are very subjective. I have read so many different definitions that I can't count them. Those with the power make the rules. They tend to create, or modify, an economic system so that it benefits themselves.
It's funny seeing people arguing for either Capitalism or Communism without mentioning democracy.
Emphasizing democracy would mean neither capital (wealth) or a state bureaucracy would be as likely to control the state. The principle would be the well being of the people. Ignoring democracy makes the argument over Capitalism and Communism fairly meaningless.They are both just ways of gaining power over the people.
Perhaps you think the U.S. is a democracy? My subjective answer would be not as much as you might think, and not as much as it once was.
Citizen's Political Power in the U.S. http://i-voter.tripod.com/
Cheap Internet $9.95. - Market monopoly priceless!
I demand Zillions for purchasing patents. Not a cent for debt relief and no taxes. This is war and we must be productive to achieve victory!
Citizen's Political Power in the U.S.
http://i-voter.tripod.com/
This concept stems from Adam Smith's book The Wealth of Nations. The original phrase would have been "the invisible hand of the market." Not that Smith actually used the exact phrase.
The point that I would make was that by Adam Smith's time jury nullification was fully accepted and contract law was judged by the people who had the right to sit on a jury. This indicates to me that while the market was, to a significant extent, freer from the State, It was no longer as free from the people.
Note: At this time the only real power the House of Commons had was to tax the commoners, or refuse to do so. The House of Lords had a total veto on all legislation.
To me the use of the term free-market in the U.S. implies that it is free from the people. To put it simply, the government always serves someones interest, and people without power tend to suffer.
If someone believes that words on a piece of paper will defend their rights, they are not a republican or a democrat, they are fools. Only people have the interest to defend political rights that benefit people.
You can not have it both ways. A political system that gives most political power to an an elite will not be defended by those without power. Also, those without power will not help you turn the tide back to the way it was. The powerless may, or may not, be highly educated, but they are not such fools as would put their trust in a piece of paper! I suspect you can see the writing on the wall - to use a vaguely biblical phrase.
Wrong! A republic just means that political rule is not by a hereditary nobility. The franchise was restricted, but people voted for representation. The USA was often described as a democracy. SEE: Tocqueville's, Democracy in America, pub 1835.
Wildly Wrong! In fact we had a great deal more political power than we have now! Those who had the franchise had jury nullification. Jury nullification included the right to judge contracts, speech issues, theft, etc.
The Constitutional Relationship of the People to the Law
RE: per our Constitution, the government is supposed to have little political power as well. That brings up something that I think needs to be more widely understood, although it is not a constitutional issue. It is the effective outlawing of political parties. It gives incumbent politicians much greater power.
What is a Political Party
Mod up. Mod way up!
The vast majority of the U.S. population has little political power compared to most other democratic nations. I wonder if many of the people who promote standing up for "liberty," ever consider the relationship democracy has to "liberty" or "freedom." Are liberty and freedom defined by, and stem from, democratic principles or elite principles? We no longer have any real jury nullification power in the US. The terms liberty and freedom mean nothing. You must explain who has the right to define the laws relating to them.
Politically speaking, if freedom only means "nothing else to lose," then you are fairly free in the U.S. - it could include our large prison population.
Citizen's Political Power in the U.S.