are we turning into a communist country?
by David · in General Discussion · 03/28/2002 (2:55 pm) · 86 replies
Just read and you will see what i mean.
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51274,00.html
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,51274,00.html
#82
02/19/2003 (1:30 pm)
Let's not revive old, long-dead arguments.
#83
02/19/2003 (2:01 pm)
Yeah, I noticed the dates after I had posted the second thing. As for encryption, the last I heard about it was at work about 4 months ago....it is illegal, and your reference was from '97. But I guess those of us who work around the stuff every day don't know what we're talking about....but anyways, time to go to work, and apologies about bringing up the ooooooold post.
#84
02/19/2003 (2:09 pm)
If I'm wrong, I'd love to see a reference on the law, since I'm pretty sure that the research lab at my alma mater's cheerfully breaking it daily.
#85
02/19/2003 (2:16 pm)
If your alma mater ia breaking it, more power to them. I can try to find a reference for it, but I doubt I'll be able to as I *think* its more of a policy made by the NSA than a law, but I'll ask around anyway. Either way, it has the power of a law. Making encryption stuff isnt illegal, only using it is (and I dont mean "use" as in testing it). But anyways, like I said before, I gotta be gettin to work.
#86
"People deserve privacy "
This begs the question what sort/level of privacy and from whom?
Personal Privacy as a real social concept didn't even exist until the last ~100 years. There was no real Personal privacy or even want/drive for privacy until relatively recently and even then it is mostly assumed/imagioned and not a reality. So, "People deserve privacy " may be a good statement for an ideal but in real terms it has never really existed and most likely will never exist as a totality.
"In America, you do have the right to shoot someone"
There is a difference between a "right" and a "ability to"
"The government has guns, and so should we"
and
"he fact that the united states was founded as a democratic republic is reflected most clearly in the right to bear arms. a gun is power, plain and simple. if only the government has guns, only the government has power. the right to bear arms, to my mind, is the single most important right we have. it means that if the government gets too bad for enough of us, we reserve the right to change management, through any means necessary. "
"You do not need guns to brake a government. Gandi did not."
Good point!
Back when the US was being created, the STATES wanted a level of autonomy and the grantee of it was to be able to have there own militias. (learn real history)
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "
**History, Intent and Grammar confuse the amendment and the people evoking it. (It IS ambiguous)
"It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia"
"The militia, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon"
"What Arms may be kept. -- The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defense of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely for deadly individual encounters may be prohibited. "
So, is this a personal right? or a state right? and does it even make a difference now-a-days? Allot of good a pistol or a shotgun etc. are going to do with taking over the government. . If there was a revolt and the army did fight against the citizens the citizens would get massacred easily. (Unless you want to go the terrorist way) So going a peaceful way would have more chance of working. If the army didn't fight (we do have a volunteer army) the guns are useless anyway, are you going to shoot unarmed people? And you have a peaceful way again. So in the end Guns would not help and only cause needless death.
"I HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MY OWN ACTIONS, and as a human being must decide whats right and wrong. not a government"
So, by your statement since the government can not decide what IS right and wrong and I must decide what's right and wrong, I deside that killing one pesion I don't like a day is a morally correct thing to do and is "right" since the government can not decide what IS right and wrong for me it is powerless to DO anything about it . . . So the entire concept of LAW and society is moot in your "world"? "responsible" also must have a context . . being responsible alone only has meaning in context of a society. Terrorists are being very responsible in fooling the laws and teachings of there society and religion. It only sucks that they want to kill you.
If everyone everywhere HAS this overwhelming global self responsibility for there own actions why are people being killed, things being stolen, and all of the other rather "unresponsibe" thing going on today? It is not the government's fault it is the people fault. A government only defines/enforces a society concept of what is right and wrong. If that deviates from that society concept then the society has lost control of the government.
This goes to the design of the common lock, a common lock is to keep the honest being honest and not to keep thieves out, since a thief can defeat it easily. We have rules and Laws made to structure the society we live in. They punish the people that transgress those laws to keep society running. So by definition a responsible citizen of a society is one that follows those rules and Laws.
The constantly used "what's next?" Argument!! (as in, if they pass X then "what's next?" they would pass Y too right, and you don't like Y at all do you . . .etc)
This is one of the most common and wrongly used arguments there is. . to keep a proposal down by invoking possible radical fictional proposals that may or may not follow the ratification of the original proposal.
Essentially this is a dead end argument that can be applied to EVERY proposal that causes any change in ANYTHING.
So, keeping in mind possible consequences is a good thing, but constantly using a grandiose "what's next?" Argument as a fall back is a sign of a person LOOSING an argument, not a compelling retort.
"Freedom" is not an absolute! It is all a state of mind and perspective. One person's great freedom may look like Anarchy to another and another's freedom may look oppressive!
02/20/2003 (12:42 pm)
Some comments:"People deserve privacy "
This begs the question what sort/level of privacy and from whom?
Personal Privacy as a real social concept didn't even exist until the last ~100 years. There was no real Personal privacy or even want/drive for privacy until relatively recently and even then it is mostly assumed/imagioned and not a reality. So, "People deserve privacy " may be a good statement for an ideal but in real terms it has never really existed and most likely will never exist as a totality.
"In America, you do have the right to shoot someone"
There is a difference between a "right" and a "ability to"
"The government has guns, and so should we"
and
"he fact that the united states was founded as a democratic republic is reflected most clearly in the right to bear arms. a gun is power, plain and simple. if only the government has guns, only the government has power. the right to bear arms, to my mind, is the single most important right we have. it means that if the government gets too bad for enough of us, we reserve the right to change management, through any means necessary. "
"You do not need guns to brake a government. Gandi did not."
Good point!
Back when the US was being created, the STATES wanted a level of autonomy and the grantee of it was to be able to have there own militias. (learn real history)
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "
**History, Intent and Grammar confuse the amendment and the people evoking it. (It IS ambiguous)
"It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia"
"The militia, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon"
"What Arms may be kept. -- The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defense of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely for deadly individual encounters may be prohibited. "
So, is this a personal right? or a state right? and does it even make a difference now-a-days? Allot of good a pistol or a shotgun etc. are going to do with taking over the government. . If there was a revolt and the army did fight against the citizens the citizens would get massacred easily. (Unless you want to go the terrorist way) So going a peaceful way would have more chance of working. If the army didn't fight (we do have a volunteer army) the guns are useless anyway, are you going to shoot unarmed people? And you have a peaceful way again. So in the end Guns would not help and only cause needless death.
"I HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MY OWN ACTIONS, and as a human being must decide whats right and wrong. not a government"
So, by your statement since the government can not decide what IS right and wrong and I must decide what's right and wrong, I deside that killing one pesion I don't like a day is a morally correct thing to do and is "right" since the government can not decide what IS right and wrong for me it is powerless to DO anything about it . . . So the entire concept of LAW and society is moot in your "world"? "responsible" also must have a context . . being responsible alone only has meaning in context of a society. Terrorists are being very responsible in fooling the laws and teachings of there society and religion. It only sucks that they want to kill you.
If everyone everywhere HAS this overwhelming global self responsibility for there own actions why are people being killed, things being stolen, and all of the other rather "unresponsibe" thing going on today? It is not the government's fault it is the people fault. A government only defines/enforces a society concept of what is right and wrong. If that deviates from that society concept then the society has lost control of the government.
This goes to the design of the common lock, a common lock is to keep the honest being honest and not to keep thieves out, since a thief can defeat it easily. We have rules and Laws made to structure the society we live in. They punish the people that transgress those laws to keep society running. So by definition a responsible citizen of a society is one that follows those rules and Laws.
The constantly used "what's next?" Argument!! (as in, if they pass X then "what's next?" they would pass Y too right, and you don't like Y at all do you . . .etc)
This is one of the most common and wrongly used arguments there is. . to keep a proposal down by invoking possible radical fictional proposals that may or may not follow the ratification of the original proposal.
Essentially this is a dead end argument that can be applied to EVERY proposal that causes any change in ANYTHING.
So, keeping in mind possible consequences is a good thing, but constantly using a grandiose "what's next?" Argument as a fall back is a sign of a person LOOSING an argument, not a compelling retort.
"Freedom" is not an absolute! It is all a state of mind and perspective. One person's great freedom may look like Anarchy to another and another's freedom may look oppressive!
Torque Owner Mz
www.eff.org/Legal/Cases/Bernstein_v_DoS/19970826.pressrel