3 ms·

> I propose that "legal" is the default state for new inventions. But it isn't, so that proposal doesn't mean anything; if you want self driving cars, you must

> I propose that "legal" is the default state for new inventions. But it isn't, so that proposal doesn't mean anything; if you want self driving cars, you must convince government to allow it. Vehicles require state approval, you can't drive an unlicensed vehicle and the state won't license vehicles they don't know are safe and haven't been approved yet. > I think it's becoming clear to all of us that the internet will not abide government and I really don't want it to have to come to a head in the form of violence. It's abiding by government just fine.

mch82 11y ago
Actually, the constitution is written so that things are legal by default. All rights not explicitly granted to the national government go to the states or to the people. Edit: in the United States.
- gnaritas 11y ago
  To the states or to the people, and the states have chosen to not make those things legal by default.
jMyles 11y ago
> It's abiding by government just fine. Is it?! It seems to be increasingly in a state of tension as governments flailingly attempt to censor and surveil. Content whose distribution is prohibited on "copyright" grounds is very widely available. My understanding is that drugs and illicit pornography are available on ongoing dark net markets, which are now stronger and more numerous than in the silk road days. Jobs are routinely outsourced as remote work to the other side of the world, in violation of the spirit of labor laws. The EFF and other organizations are in a constant cycle of litigation to ward off more impotent laws that threaten to criminalize or civilly sanction already widespread behavior on the internet. In what ways is the internet abiding the government?
- gnaritas 11y ago
  Those things are all still quite barely used by the masses, government control is still firmly in place of the majority of people who abide by the law. Pointing out exceptions to the rule doesn't invalidate the rule.

mch82 11y ago

Actually, the constitution is written so that things are legal by default. All rights not explicitly granted to the national government go to the states or to the people. Edit: in the United States.

gnaritas 11y ago
To the states or to the people, and the states have chosen to not make those things legal by default.

jMyles 11y ago

> It's abiding by government just fine. Is it?! It seems to be increasingly in a state of tension as governments flailingly attempt to censor and surveil. Content whose distribution is prohibited on "copyright" grounds is very widely available. My understanding is that drugs and illicit pornography are available on ongoing dark net markets, which are now stronger and more numerous than in the silk road days. Jobs are routinely outsourced as remote work to the other side of the world, in violation of the spirit of labor laws. The EFF and other organizations are in a constant cycle of litigation to ward off more impotent laws that threaten to criminalize or civilly sanction already widespread behavior on the internet. In what ways is the internet abiding the government?

gnaritas 11y ago
Those things are all still quite barely used by the masses, government control is still firmly in place of the majority of people who abide by the law. Pointing out exceptions to the rule doesn't invalidate the rule.