4 ms·

What? The constitution doesn't have to explicitly allow something. And your argument for GPS turning out well would seem to be an argument in favor of governmen

by foota 7y ago

What? The constitution doesn't have to explicitly allow something. And your argument for GPS turning out well would seem to be an argument in favor of government controlled systems working well?

syshum 7y ago
>>>The constitution doesn't have to explicitly allow something Yes it actually does, if the Constitution does not Grant the power to the Government then that power is Reserved for the States and the people We have forgotten what the constitution is, it is a document outlines what the government is allowed to do, everything else is suppose to be forbidden. Instead somehow over the last 200 years a few of the vague parts of the constitution have be misinterpreted (the commerce clause as an exampled) to give the federal government near unlimited power
- foota 7y ago
  Honestly? I don't really care what the constitution says, I think it makes way more sense for our government to have a blacklist of laws they can pass rather than a whitelist. That said though, I acknowledge that you're right. Fortunately for me, the courts seem to disagree :-)
  - syshum 7y ago
    It only makes sense if you support Authoritarian governments and oppose liberty for individuals Granting the government unlimited authority then "blacklisting" only come things is a recipe for abuse, which is what we have today if you are a person that believes in individualist freedoms it is a fundamental difference as to who is the master and who is the servant, you believe the people are subverted to the government. I believe like our founders that We the people are the masters, I believe in self-governance, I believe in Self Ownership, I believe in liberty. it is sad we as a society has lost respect for indivualism and liberty
    - eesmith 7y ago
      The 10th amendment which you referred to limits federal powers, but not state powers. What in the Constitution (before 1865) prevents the US states from each being authoritarian governments? For example, the original constitution allowed each state to have an established religion. Up until 1824, Massachusetts residents were required to attend the parish church. That's hardly respect for individualism and liberty. And of course the US Constitution didn't respect 'Self Ownership' until at least the 13th Amendment (for black males), nor the 'liberty' of women to vote until least the 19th Amendment. When did the Constitution ever respect the individualism and liberty of Native Americans? And on the topic of liberty - racists in the 1960s wanted the 'liberty' to reject black customers (just like homophobes want the 'liberty' to reject gay customers) and considered it a Constitutionally protected right. Is that part of the respect for liberty you think we have lost?
      - nercht12 7y ago
        Pardon me for interrupting the debate between you gentlemen. I thought I'd toss in a couple cents. The constitution was never fully agreed upon in spirit. It was "these are the rules we agree upon in TEXT", but each man had his own ideas, and they figured it'd be better to let it slide and figure out the meanings later. However, I'm pretty sure, given they were fighting a revolution, the founding fathers had no intention of letting in too much federal government control. They would be appalled by what they see today. Remember that they chose the Articles of Confederation first. In short, nobody - even the founding fathers - have ever fully agreed upon the meaning of the Constitution. So to say, "The Constitution only limits federal powers, but not state powers." is just as much opinion as "The 10th amendment limits both state and federal powers". However, in response to you're arguments specifically, eesmith: Given that the average demographic on HN tends to oppose government surveillance, it seems rather nonsequitor that they would continue to give the gov power over such necessary things as maps, esp considering what the gov could do with that. The fact is, if you don't draw the line of power somewhere, it'll continue to be pushed back for further loss of liberty for the AVERAGE individual. Also, "Native Americans" were not American citizens, so they weren't entitled to the same treatment under law. No offense, but law isn't "fair to all people".

by foota 7y ago

What? The constitution doesn't have to explicitly allow something. And your argument for GPS turning out well would seem to be an argument in favor of government controlled systems working well?

syshum 7y ago

>>>The constitution doesn't have to explicitly allow something Yes it actually does, if the Constitution does not Grant the power to the Government then that power is Reserved for the States and the people We have forgotten what the constitution is, it is a document outlines what the government is allowed to do, everything else is suppose to be forbidden. Instead somehow over the last 200 years a few of the vague parts of the constitution have be misinterpreted (the commerce clause as an exampled) to give the federal government near unlimited power

foota 7y ago
Honestly? I don't really care what the constitution says, I think it makes way more sense for our government to have a blacklist of laws they can pass rather than a whitelist. That said though, I acknowledge that you're right. Fortunately for me, the courts seem to disagree :-)
- syshum 7y ago
  It only makes sense if you support Authoritarian governments and oppose liberty for individuals Granting the government unlimited authority then "blacklisting" only come things is a recipe for abuse, which is what we have today if you are a person that believes in individualist freedoms it is a fundamental difference as to who is the master and who is the servant, you believe the people are subverted to the government. I believe like our founders that We the people are the masters, I believe in self-governance, I believe in Self Ownership, I believe in liberty. it is sad we as a society has lost respect for indivualism and liberty
  - eesmith 7y ago
    The 10th amendment which you referred to limits federal powers, but not state powers. What in the Constitution (before 1865) prevents the US states from each being authoritarian governments? For example, the original constitution allowed each state to have an established religion. Up until 1824, Massachusetts residents were required to attend the parish church. That's hardly respect for individualism and liberty. And of course the US Constitution didn't respect 'Self Ownership' until at least the 13th Amendment (for black males), nor the 'liberty' of women to vote until least the 19th Amendment. When did the Constitution ever respect the individualism and liberty of Native Americans? And on the topic of liberty - racists in the 1960s wanted the 'liberty' to reject black customers (just like homophobes want the 'liberty' to reject gay customers) and considered it a Constitutionally protected right. Is that part of the respect for liberty you think we have lost?
    - nercht12 7y ago
      Pardon me for interrupting the debate between you gentlemen. I thought I'd toss in a couple cents. The constitution was never fully agreed upon in spirit. It was "these are the rules we agree upon in TEXT", but each man had his own ideas, and they figured it'd be better to let it slide and figure out the meanings later. However, I'm pretty sure, given they were fighting a revolution, the founding fathers had no intention of letting in too much federal government control. They would be appalled by what they see today. Remember that they chose the Articles of Confederation first. In short, nobody - even the founding fathers - have ever fully agreed upon the meaning of the Constitution. So to say, "The Constitution only limits federal powers, but not state powers." is just as much opinion as "The 10th amendment limits both state and federal powers". However, in response to you're arguments specifically, eesmith: Given that the average demographic on HN tends to oppose government surveillance, it seems rather nonsequitor that they would continue to give the gov power over such necessary things as maps, esp considering what the gov could do with that. The fact is, if you don't draw the line of power somewhere, it'll continue to be pushed back for further loss of liberty for the AVERAGE individual. Also, "Native Americans" were not American citizens, so they weren't entitled to the same treatment under law. No offense, but law isn't "fair to all people".