Now people will demand ACTION! We need the federal government to seize control of the internet to force it to be free! Then we can stop the greedy capitalist private sector from forming monopolies and getting rich off the backs of the populace!
And then, after the bill is passed, the government will use its newfound power to award AT&T an exclusive, no-bid contract for all services, everywhere, thereby creating the monopoly everyone had feared. Then people will decry the "failure" of the "free market" to prevent monopolies, and the cycle will continue. It never ends.
It's funny how everyone understands that our government works for our corporations, and yet they still argue that the only way to solve it is to give the government more power. That's like saying the only way to prevent being beaten up by a thug hired by the mafia is to replace the thug's club with a gun. Sure, the gun would be more deadly to a mafia boss than a club would, but you're forgetting who works for who in all of it.
Can you point to a time when Mike has accused a judge of "being in the pocket of Big Content" merely for issuing a ruling he disagrees with? Otherwise, that's just a strawman.
It was quite awesome when first crafted (hell, it's still quite awesome in a relative sense!). In an absolute sense, however, they left a bunch of things out. Some of them were not their fault; they simply didn't know they would be an issue down the road.
The war on cameras (and other technological methods of accountability) by police officers, for example, could not have been foreseen.
Six months could be a bit hard when it's something that's an emergency. I prefer a time period based on on how big they are. But I agree with the sentiment.
We also need an automatic sunset provision: All bills should have an expiration date attached to them, not to exceed, say, five years.
That should prevent some really lousy pieces of legislation from just hanging around forever because no one wants to spend political capitol on getting rid of them.
But on the whole, nearly everyone in the population would vote to use guns when presented with a situation they didn't personally agree with.
One person says "live and let live!" when confronted with gay marriage, but immediately turns around and decries the use of trans-fats in their donut. The next complains about how the government is poking its nose into what he eats, but by God he believes the country will go down the tubes if the "queers" are allowed to marry.
I stand by my assertion that people are not "live and let live".
The problem is that, when you get specific, those doing the twisting will simply claim that the language is exclusionary, and anything not specified is okay.
The constitution was meant to be an exhaustive list of all federal government powers and not merely a handful of them, but they didn't spell this out clear enough, apparently. A new version that said "YOU WILL TIE EVERY LAW YOU WRITE TO ONE OF THESE HANDFUL OF POWERS IN THE VERY TEXT OF THAT LAW OR WE WILL STRING YOU UP BY YOUR TOES" would be a welcome addition.
Clarifying the court's role in striking down unconstitutional laws would also be welcome, given how randomly that particular power arose. I'm not a fan of "judicial restraint" and deference to the legislature, for example. I would rather laws be struck down that weren't "obviously constitutional", rather than allowed when they aren't "obviously unconstitutional".
Hell, it is specificity, no vagueness, that opens the second and fourth amendment up to attack.
I know what you're saying, and I agree to a point. But it also cuts the other way. Citizens can't be subject to "unreasonable" search and seizure. What's "reasonable"? Anything the government wants is reasonable, of course! In my opinion, the text can be made to cover the generic without also making it vague.
Ultimately, rewriting can do no good if the people are not willing to stand up for their rights. [...] When a president can enter illegally into war and blatantly disregard the war powers resolution, yet impeachment is considered to be radical, there are no checks and balances left.
Those who behave in the familiar live and let live mentality that the majority of us share
Majority of who share? I fairly certain the majority of people vote to use force in any case they have an opinion on, often without a thought as to whether or not it's proper.
Is someone trying to marry someone else I don't approve of? Send in the hired guns!
Is a bank charging more interest than I'd like? Send in the hired guns!
Is a bakery adding something to their food that I'd rather they didn't? Send in the hired guns!
Did someone write something on a piece of paper they own that I wrote on my piece of paper yesterday? Send in the hired guns!
The Bill of Rights needs some additions badly, especially regarding transparency of government and freedom of contract.
I'd also argue that some other parts of the constitution regarding how the government is set up could be changed too, since parts of it were created to be practical in a time when technology and communication were limited (the electoral system being a good example).
When you consider that the bill of rights was basically just a compilation of all things that the states saw the previous government doing and didn't like, this suggestion makes a lot of sense.
We definitely need to add some new ones to the list.
Censorship of what should be free speech, such as the right to religion or freedom of political expression isn't in the same category as stopping pirate websites
Why do you think religious speech should be tolerated? Couldn't someone from China argue that the free expression of religion undermines society, just like you argue piracy does?
"But wait", you say, "My preferred speech is a right! It's speech that I don't like that should be criminalized!"
"Exactly!" says the Chinese official.
On the post: The Many Killers Of The Music Industry: The Digital Era
Great Post
On the post: Kutiman Continues To Make Amazing New Music Via Musical Collage
Re: Ask for permission.
On the post: Kutiman Continues To Make Amazing New Music Via Musical Collage
Re: Re:
On the post: Kutiman Continues To Make Amazing New Music Via Musical Collage
Re: Re:
On the post: Wisconsin Kills WiscNet, Because The Only Good Infrastructure Is AT&T Infrastructure
Re: Free Market? What a joke!
Now people will demand ACTION! We need the federal government to seize control of the internet to force it to be free! Then we can stop the greedy capitalist private sector from forming monopolies and getting rich off the backs of the populace!
And then, after the bill is passed, the government will use its newfound power to award AT&T an exclusive, no-bid contract for all services, everywhere, thereby creating the monopoly everyone had feared. Then people will decry the "failure" of the "free market" to prevent monopolies, and the cycle will continue. It never ends.
It's funny how everyone understands that our government works for our corporations, and yet they still argue that the only way to solve it is to give the government more power. That's like saying the only way to prevent being beaten up by a thug hired by the mafia is to replace the thug's club with a gun. Sure, the gun would be more deadly to a mafia boss than a club would, but you're forgetting who works for who in all of it.
On the post: Mixed Messages: US Talks Of Cleaning Up 'Rogue' Internet... While Underwriting Censorship-Proof Shadow Internet
Re: Re: Would You Trust a US Government version of TOR?
"Given what we've seen in the last year, would you trust any new version of TOR created by the US government?"
On the post: Judge Rules That Righthaven Lawsuit Was A Sham; Threatens Sanctions
Re:
On the post: Iceland (a.k.a. The Transparentest Place On Earth) Crowdsources Its New Constitution
Re: Re: Very Cool
The war on cameras (and other technological methods of accountability) by police officers, for example, could not have been foreseen.
On the post: Iceland (a.k.a. The Transparentest Place On Earth) Crowdsources Its New Constitution
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Very Cool
That is, he wanted to amend the constitution to require all laws to have a six month hold period.
On the post: Iceland (a.k.a. The Transparentest Place On Earth) Crowdsources Its New Constitution
Re: Re: Re: Very Cool
We also need an automatic sunset provision: All bills should have an expiration date attached to them, not to exceed, say, five years.
That should prevent some really lousy pieces of legislation from just hanging around forever because no one wants to spend political capitol on getting rid of them.
On the post: Iceland (a.k.a. The Transparentest Place On Earth) Crowdsources Its New Constitution
Re: Re: Re: Re:
But on the whole, nearly everyone in the population would vote to use guns when presented with a situation they didn't personally agree with.
One person says "live and let live!" when confronted with gay marriage, but immediately turns around and decries the use of trans-fats in their donut. The next complains about how the government is poking its nose into what he eats, but by God he believes the country will go down the tubes if the "queers" are allowed to marry.
I stand by my assertion that people are not "live and let live".
On the post: Iceland (a.k.a. The Transparentest Place On Earth) Crowdsources Its New Constitution
Re: Re: Re: Re: Very Cool
The constitution was meant to be an exhaustive list of all federal government powers and not merely a handful of them, but they didn't spell this out clear enough, apparently. A new version that said "YOU WILL TIE EVERY LAW YOU WRITE TO ONE OF THESE HANDFUL OF POWERS IN THE VERY TEXT OF THAT LAW OR WE WILL STRING YOU UP BY YOUR TOES" would be a welcome addition.
Clarifying the court's role in striking down unconstitutional laws would also be welcome, given how randomly that particular power arose. I'm not a fan of "judicial restraint" and deference to the legislature, for example. I would rather laws be struck down that weren't "obviously constitutional", rather than allowed when they aren't "obviously unconstitutional".
Hell, it is specificity, no vagueness, that opens the second and fourth amendment up to attack.
I know what you're saying, and I agree to a point. But it also cuts the other way. Citizens can't be subject to "unreasonable" search and seizure. What's "reasonable"? Anything the government wants is reasonable, of course! In my opinion, the text can be made to cover the generic without also making it vague.
Ultimately, rewriting can do no good if the people are not willing to stand up for their rights. [...] When a president can enter illegally into war and blatantly disregard the war powers resolution, yet impeachment is considered to be radical, there are no checks and balances left.
You are my favorite person. Well said, sir.
On the post: Iceland (a.k.a. The Transparentest Place On Earth) Crowdsources Its New Constitution
Re: Re:
Majority of who share? I fairly certain the majority of people vote to use force in any case they have an opinion on, often without a thought as to whether or not it's proper.
Is someone trying to marry someone else I don't approve of? Send in the hired guns!
Is a bank charging more interest than I'd like? Send in the hired guns!
Is a bakery adding something to their food that I'd rather they didn't? Send in the hired guns!
Did someone write something on a piece of paper they own that I wrote on my piece of paper yesterday? Send in the hired guns!
On the post: Iceland (a.k.a. The Transparentest Place On Earth) Crowdsources Its New Constitution
Re: Re: Very Cool
I'd also argue that some other parts of the constitution regarding how the government is set up could be changed too, since parts of it were created to be practical in a time when technology and communication were limited (the electoral system being a good example).
On the post: Iceland (a.k.a. The Transparentest Place On Earth) Crowdsources Its New Constitution
Re: Re: Very Cool
The commerce clause was not intended for anywhere near the kind of crap the feds use it for today, for example.
On the post: Iceland (a.k.a. The Transparentest Place On Earth) Crowdsources Its New Constitution
Re:
We definitely need to add some new ones to the list.
On the post: Iceland (a.k.a. The Transparentest Place On Earth) Crowdsources Its New Constitution
Very Cool
On the post: Rojadirecta Sues US Government, Homeland Security & ICE Over Domain Seizure
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Waste of time..
Copyhype. I peruse the site once in a while when I think my blood pressure needs a boost.
On the post: Mixed Messages: US Talks Of Cleaning Up 'Rogue' Internet... While Underwriting Censorship-Proof Shadow Internet
Re: Re:
Frankly, I wish it were.
On the post: Mixed Messages: US Talks Of Cleaning Up 'Rogue' Internet... While Underwriting Censorship-Proof Shadow Internet
Re:
Why do you think religious speech should be tolerated? Couldn't someone from China argue that the free expression of religion undermines society, just like you argue piracy does?
"But wait", you say, "My preferred speech is a right! It's speech that I don't like that should be criminalized!"
"Exactly!" says the Chinese official.
Next >>